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

[Dad2three]

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.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

"With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity."

TRUE, WE CALL THEM CONservatives/GOP

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

Prior to the November 2012 election, 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HELL WE CAN'T PAY OFF DEBT, REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE OR HELP THE BOTTOM 90% OF US, lol

 

[Dad2three]

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.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

"conservative fiscal policy" ? You mean gut taxes for the rich, blow up Gov't spending THEN refuse to pay for it, like Reagan/Dubya/GOP for 30+ years?

 

[Dad2three]

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.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

 

[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.

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?

Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from 50% (he had for the first 6 years, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) to 28% in 1987

 

[hadit]

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

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

 

[hadit]

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?

Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from 50% (he had for the first 6 years, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) to 28% in 1987

Here's a hint for the terminally obstinate, and something that your own chart shows. JFK cut the top rate first, from 91% to 70%. Guess what happened to the economy when he did that?

 

[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.

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

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from 50% (he had for the first 6 years, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) to 28% in 1987

Here's a hint for the terminally obstinate, and something that your own chart shows. JFK cut the top rate first, from 91% to 70%. Guess what happened to the economy when he did that?

You mean LBJ 's DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS BUBBA?


HINT EFFECTIVE TAX RATES ON THOSE "JOB CREATORS" DIDN'T FALL BUBS, LOL

 

[hadit]

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?

They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico. Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.

 

[hadit]

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

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

 

[Dad2three]

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?

They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico. Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.

Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol

 

[hadit]

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?

Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from 50% (he had for the first 6 years, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) to 28% in 1987

And it worked, big time.

 

[Boss]

hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.

 

[hadit]

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?

They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico. Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.

Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol

Where does a smart person invest his money, in a hostile environment where every penny is jealously watched by vultures sick with greed and envy, or in a friendly environment where his return is greater and less is confiscated? And no, you cut spending at the same time. That's what you have to do with this crop of Washington idiots.

 

[hadit]

hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.

That's obvious. I enjoy watching them panic as argument after argument is stripped away from them.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Like I said, they're not stupid and they hire teams of tax attorneys to make it all go away. That's why tax increasing schemes NEVER generate the revenue they're supposed to. People adjust and move things around. I remember the infamous and stupid yacht tax that was going to really get those rich SOB's. All it did was destroy the American yacht building industry and put a lot of well paid craftsmen out of work. And the wealthy didn't care at all. Same thing will happen with any soak the rich scheme.

Sure, like Clinton increased taxes did right?

7.5% of GDP to 9.9% by 2000 (income tax burden, percent GDP)

OR total tax burden of 17% to 20% of GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


PEOPLE ADJUST HUH? LOL

Bubba Clinton rode the dot com boom, which generated enough profits to outweigh his wealth grab. The economy would have been even better without them.

Lol, I thought the right wing meme was it was Reagan's 16 year miracle that Clinton rode?

 

[Dad2three]

hadit, they are stupid with Socialism! They don't care! That's the big ruse here! They argue like they care about capitalism... like they care about people... the truth is, they don't care about anything other than destroying capitalism and installing socialism. They will lie, mislead, pretend to be intellectual... whatever it takes.

Says the big liar who doesn't understand as a US citizen any income made ANYWHERE in the world is subject to US taxation?? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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?

They would more likely increase jobs all right, in China and Mexico. Keep labor costs this high and jobs won't be coming back, no matter how much you kick and scream.

Oh right, Let's "believe you" since YOU are the guys saying gut taxes and the US economy would boom? lol

Where does a smart person invest his money, in a hostile environment where every penny is jealously watched by vultures sick with greed and envy, or in a friendly environment where his return is greater and less is confiscated? And no, you cut spending at the same time. That's what you have to do with this crop of Washington idiots.

Weird, Obama's "war" on job creators is going horribly, record Corp profits, lowest tax "burden" in 40 years and first time EVER labor less than half their costs!


Hostile? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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?

Weird, and yet Ronnie "felt" they needed even MORE of a tax cut???

HINT Ronnie cut the top rate from 50% (he had for the first 6 years, but still had to increase taxes 11 times because just that 70% to 50% gutted tax revenues!) to 28% in 1987

And it worked, big time.

You mean by shifting the tax burden on workers, blowing up Gov't spending WHILE having slower growth than under Clinton or 1945-1980 average???

lol

 

[Dad2three]

STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There's Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)