Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[bedowin62]

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he, she's being taxed at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Liar.

Do you have trouble reading the English language??

CEO Pay in 2012 Was Extraordinarily High Relative to Typical Workers and Other High Earners | Economic Policy Institute

From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

Why no I don't. Do you? You think cutting and pasting bullshit makes you smart? FYI.. you're a dumb ass piece of shit fucking moron if you think people 1) paid 91% in taxes or 2) should pay 91% in taxes.

That's all they can do though. Leftists are generally pretty ignorant people. Cutting and pasting, is all they can do. Keep your expectations low enough, and you won't be disappointed by the left anymore.

Says the Klown arguing the US can't make people pay higher taxes, lol

that's what they paid you dullard. it doesnt give a whole picture. if you losers wanted to get rid of all the loopholes you could have; we both know why Dems never even tried

 

[bedowin62]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

Yep Bubba, The ANTI Tax Foundation showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today, an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY, a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol



Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol

the bottom half pays next to zero in federal income tax you idiot. if their total taxes are high it's because they get taxed to death mostly in Blue states at the state and local level

 

[bedowin62]

why do you Progressive idiots keep pretending it is still the 1950s and 1960s?

 

[Dad2three]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

D2stupid, is a known troll. He rarely, if ever, reads his own links. He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.

Sorry Bubba, I'm NOT a CONservative, I READ ANYTHING I LINK, I link to the ANTI Tax Foundation to show the drop in the bottom half of US from the piece of the pie, NOT to cherry pick the piece of the pie that the ANTI TAX Foundation CHOOSES to highlight on the "unfair" burden the top 1% has, as their incomes EXPLODED and their EFFECTIVE tax burden dropped AND the ACTUAL federal tax burden on that piece of the pie the top 1% TAKES, has dropped, by about 40%

 

[bedowin62]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

D2stupid, is a known troll. He rarely, if ever, reads his own links. He'll post that same link a dozen times, thinking that it supports his views, even after you pointed this out to him.

Sorry Bubba, I'm NOT a CONservative, I READ ANYTHING I LINK, I link to the ANTI Tax Foundation to show the drop in the bottom half of US from the piece of the pie, NOT to cherry pick the piece of the pie that the ANTI TAX Foundation CHOOSES to highlight on the "unfair" burden the top 1% has, as their incomes EXPLODED and their EFFECTIVE tax burden dropped AND the ACTUAL federal tax burden on that piece of the pie the top 1% TAKES, has dropped, by about 40%

grab your pitchfork and torch leftard

 

[Mr Natural]

We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.

And once they're gone, they are gone forever.

And then what will we ever do?

 

[Andylusion]

We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.

And once they're gone, they are gone forever.

And then what will we ever do?

Well if we look around at other countries that lost their rich and wealthy, the movers and shakers that produce the goods and jobs in the economy...... we'll likely fall into poverty and decline. If that continues, we'll end up in cannibalism like the Soviets did.

 

[Dad2three]

Let's just make them pay 90%...

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people? Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy? The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig? You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today. The difference is, you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today. Information was not public. Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts. You can't "make" people pay a tax. You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game. Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire. How did he do that, if the game was fixed?

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years. How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company. I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged. Idiot.

You are just wrong. As you people always are.

You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't. Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now. That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson. You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.

Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met. I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are? No? I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you? Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?

Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW. That is what crappy scum suckers do.

Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect. While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time.... we do have 'income ranges'. The range of income is from several different brackets. Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range. Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate. A few hundred at best.

But then you have to take into account, when. Why? Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.

In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.

Do understand what happened? The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden. They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation. Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for? You wouldn't. I wouldn't. No one would.

So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue. Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.

And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.

View attachment 50127

Look back at the 1950s. The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got. They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.

Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.

If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs, you people are nutz. Sorry.

MORE RIGHT WING BULLSHIT

The purpose of the estate tax is to keep all other taxes as low a possible. It’s so we can have roads, and courts, and a patent office, and science, and food safety, and mine inspectors, and air traffic controllers, and earned benefits in retirement, and national defense, and so we don’t have to tax milk.


"If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule..."


WEALTHY TAX BURDEN DUMMY:

"So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue. Why you are shocked by this, I don't know."


SHOW ME ANY CREDIBLE STUDY THAT SAYS THE US WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE FROM 1960-1981 BUBBA? ANY?


Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."







January 15, 2004

TOTAL REVENUES FROM ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT DROP TO LOWEST SHARE OF ECONOMY SINCE 1968

Government Spending at Lower Share of GDP Than in All Years from 1980-1996


In recent years, the overall fiscal position of the government — reflecting federal, state, and local governments combined — has shifted from one of surpluses to one of substantial deficits. Just-released government data show the principal reason for this shift is that revenue collections have shrunk markedly. Combined federal, state, and local revenues fell in fiscal year 2003 to their lowest level, measured as a share of the economy, since 1968.

| Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

So you know his daughter?

And you know how she feels?

Her father earned it and he earned the right to do with as he pleased...

Yeah, BECAUSE the US was Founded on inherited wealth NOT that the Founders wanted an MERIT BASED SOCIETY


Hint 6 of the top 10 richest US citizens are there THANKS TO INHERITING DADDY'S MONEY! *Walton/Koch's...


HINT GOV'T POLICY CAN SAY WHERE THE MONEY GOES RIGHT?

 

[Dad2three]

We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.

And once they're gone, they are gone forever.

And then what will we ever do?

PLEASE PULL A GALT MORONS! US ECONOMY BY FAR THE LARGEST AND STRONGEST ECONOMY, THE BILLIONAIRE WANT TO LEAVE? lol

 

[Dad2three]

We have to take care of our billionaires otherwise they'll leave us.

And once they're gone, they are gone forever.

And then what will we ever do?

Well if we look around at other countries that lost their rich and wealthy, the movers and shakers that produce the goods and jobs in the economy...... we'll likely fall into poverty and decline. If that continues, we'll end up in cannibalism like the Soviets did.

Which countries is that Bubba?

You mean communism failed that THEORY like the Randian fetish you Klowns have,m that's NEVER worked ANYWHERE?

 

[hadit]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Reagan began slashing tax rates then came George W. Bush. Neither of them cut their spending a goodam dime and borrowed from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. It's what the Republican party stands for these days, and not much more. What they did was to funnel trillions of borrowed dollars to those in our country who were already well off. It's not a military secret...it's as plain as the nose on our faces:

................................Total U S Debt............................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Let's just make them pay 90%...

How.....?

Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year. You can raise the top tax rate to 100%. He won't pay a dime more in taxes.

Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year. You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.

You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes. Every country that has tried that, has failed.

LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?

 

[Dad2three]

Liberals don't really want Americans to 'pay their fair share'. While BEING filthy rich themselves (Democratic Party and Liberal Elitist leaders), they either seek to pay as little as they can or simply don't pay their taxes, while advocating taking as much in taxes from everyone else that they can to fund their 'freebie' give-aways, donor payoffs, and *special projects designed to keep them in power.office.

46% of Americans do not pay taxes in this country, partly due to the Liberal program of 'Economic Slavery', a program designed to keep most Americans UN-successful and dependent on govt hand-outs in exchange for votes to keep the programs fully funded and the 'freebies' coming. The downside to this is that as the number of people dependent on the govt grows the fewer there are who you can tax...and to keep paying for all this as the number of recipients grows you have to keep taxing / taking more and more from the fewer and fewer there are left to pay for it all. That's why the old factual saying remains true: 'Socialism is GREAT until the Leaders/Self-Appointed Czars run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY...and why every nation that has gone down this road and has embraced Socialism has FAILED...as in 'has COLLAPESD'!

'Fair Tax'. Get rid of the corrupt, biased IRS. Everyone has to pay a percentage. No more huge companies paying no taxes. No more allowing companies to take their businesses overseas to take advantage of slave labor then bringing the goods back into the US as if they were made here - put such a high import tariff on the goods coming back in that it will be cheaper to manufacture things back here in the states.

46% DON'T PAY TAXES IN THE US?

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:

OH YOU MEANT THAT PIECE OF THE PIE THAT'S 26% OF ALL TAXATION, INCOME TAXES AT THE FED LEVEL! LOL

The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...

Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...

The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...

The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

FEET TO THE FIRE? I THAT'S why Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first budget surplus?

Hint it was BECAUSE of this that the US budget was balanced:

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.



Oh, and Clinton balanced the budget for the first time since 1969. On May 27, 1993, Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL) said “[Americans] will remember who set loose this dreadful virus into the economic bloodstream of our nation.” If only we could have a “dreadful virus” of that sort today. More quotes below the jump.:

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

 

[Dad2three]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

Need to get past the rhetoric and realize who pays taxes...

Unfortunately the chances of you figuring this out are pretty slim...

The wealthiest of Americans pay the bulk of our tax revenue...

The issue is when are you going to figure this out and quit electing the Liberal Left POS that manipulate with such basic divide and conquer issues?

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

MORE BS

JUST TAX THE TOP 1% DOUBLE (EFFECTIVE) OF TODAY AND THEY PAY 46% RATE AND WIPE OUT THE DEFICIT DUMMY

NOT LIKE THEY EVER PAID THAT MUCH, RIGHT?

NOT EVEN TALKING THE TOP 5% , JUST THE TOP 1% BUBS, LOL

Except you won't get that much. They are not stupid and will not sit still, allowing you to take that much more, Cletus.

Weird, is there someplace else as safe and growing like the US economy? Where are they going to take the money? lol

 

[Dad2three]

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

MORE right wing crap

CARTER HAD ALMOST 20% OF GDP, Ronnie gutted it to 17.5% then Clinton got US to 20% of GDP, AND had 4 straight surpluses, Dubya/GOP gutted US to less than 15% of GDP, AS THEY RAMPED UP MEDICARE EXPANSION (WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING) AND GAVE US 2 UNFUNDED WARS. Obama is CLOSE to getting US back to 18% off GDP, BUT THAT INCLUDES OBAMACARES. RECORD REVENUES? lol

WHAT THE GOP DOES:

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.




....Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Did you know that Warren Buffet(who pays less taxes than his secretary)

He pays a smaller percentage not less...

That's a lie. He pays more and a larger percentage.

In August 2011, Warren Buffett wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times in which he made the assertion that his 2010 “federal tax rate” of 17.4 percent was 18.6 percentage points less than the 36.0 percent average rate paid by the 20 other workers in his office.


Buffett has been advocating for a minimum tax on top wage earners -- those like himself who benefit from the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings. His proposal, popularly known as the Buffett rule,(MIN 30% ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES!) has the support of the Obama administration but is strongly opposed by Republicans in Congress.


Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary

Let me guess? Buffet is "wrong" because he uses the payroll taxes the office pays? LIKE THE CBO, TREASURY, etc do too when figuring EFFECTIVE tax rates?

There's nothing that stops Buffet from becoming a man who puts his money where his mouth is. The treasury will accept extra money from him. Naturally, he's all hat and no cattle.

Sure, the US exists on voluntary taxation system *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:

.....................Total U S Debt....................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Yeah….you forgot where Reagan made a debt to cut spending and the democrats lied and just kept spending….little detail…big difference.

THE BIG LIE MAKES AN APPEARANCE. Shocking

COULD RONNIE VETO BILLS?




The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts


he Facts

Despite Reagan’s claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas — then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president — was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.

Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagan’s three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways...


The Pinocchio Test
It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

 

[Dad2three]

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:

.....................Total U S Debt....................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

You left out quite a bit. You know, the part where the debt will have doubled again by the time the latest occupant of the White House leaves, after accumulating more debt than all the other presidents combined. Sorry, but you don't get to act like the last 7 years didn't happen.

Yes, Dubya/GOP putting TWO WARS on the credit card, GROWING GOV'T SPENDING AS THEY GUT REVENUES and giving US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, AS Dubya cheered on the Bankster bubble that put US near the second GOP great depression, will tend to create debt pretty fast when the bills come due!

 

[Dad2three]

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people? Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy? The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig? You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today. The difference is, you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today. Information was not public. Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts. You can't "make" people pay a tax. You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game. Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire. How did he do that, if the game was fixed?

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years. How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company. I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged. Idiot.

You are just wrong. As you people always are.

You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish bitch need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't. Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now. That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson. You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.

Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met. I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are? No? I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you? Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?

Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW. That is what crappy scum suckers do.

Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect. While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time.... we do have 'income ranges'. The range of income is from several different brackets. Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range. Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate. A few hundred at best.

But then you have to take into account, when. Why? Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.

In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.

Do understand what happened? The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden. They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation. Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for? You wouldn't. I wouldn't. No one would.

So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue. Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.

And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.

View attachment 50127

Look back at the 1950s. The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got. They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.

Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.

If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs, you people are nutz. Sorry.

Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible. They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.

Sure, they can INCREASE WEALTH LIKE THEY DID 1945-1980 VERSUS TAKING IT AS INCOME! Perhaps THEN we can call them "US JOB CREATORS" AGAIN, VERSUS MEXICAN OR CHINESE JOB CREATORS? You know GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS RIGHT?