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

[dblack]

I see comprehension isn't your strong suit. That would explain your loony leftism.
BTW, didn't you once claim you "earn" millions yet pay no income tax?

Thanks to Republicans I pay no personal federal income tax because I 'officially' make zero income.

Yanno, I'll not bother addressing the world class stupidity in your response but I will mention the world class hypocrisy and if made to guess, I'd say you can't see either.

I'm pointing out the stupidity of fools like you that allow me to keep more of my money and screwing themselves.

If liberals and progressives focused on cleaning up the tax code and eliminating all the loopholes and exemptions that allow so many wealthy people to avoid taxes, they'd find a lot of cross over support from conservatives and libertarians. Enough to actually implement the changes. I wonder why they don't.

Because Simplicity doesn't provide the opportunities for GRAFT which Complexity does.

The sad thing is, the grassroots people really could do this. But the tools in DC will never oblige. They have too much invested in the status-quo game of trading favors.

Why don't voters demand more?

 

[Dad2three]

Go figure you can't even use conservative "math" to figure it out. I'm shocked

Why would I bother trying to prove anything about the fake numbers the idiots pulled out of their asses?

AS opposed to your "beliefs" you pulled out of your ass?

What conservatives say — and why it’s wrong



Conservatives claim the wealthy are overtaxed. But the overall share of taxes paid by the top 1% and the top 5% is about their share of total income. This shows that the tax system is not progressive when it comes to the wealthy. The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000. And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.

Conservatives claim that the estate tax is a “death tax,” wrongly implying that the tax is paid when every American dies. In fact, the tax primarily is paid by estates of multi-millionaires and billionaires. The vast majority of deaths — 99.9% — do not trigger estate taxes today


Fact Sheet: Taxing Wealthy Americans | Americans for Tax Fairness

The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7%. That is a little more than the 19.3% rate paid by someone making an average of $75,000.

24.7% is 28% more than 19.3%. Durr.

?...

24.7 / 19.3 = 1.2797927

Durr.

And 1 out of 5 millionaires pays a lower rate than someone making $50,000 to $100,000.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, everyone pays taxes, just not income taxes where all the goodies come from.

Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????

What trust funds do you speak of? You mean Social Security? Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off. This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor. All died under the age which they could collect Social Security. What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?

It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS" BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!

A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms. And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in. Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional. If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund. After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.

 

[Dad2three]

Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.
2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.
3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?
4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.
5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.
6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.
7. The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.

While some of these waste examples seem like a drop in the bucket, cutting wasteful spending is important to build momentum to tackle even more difficult and pressing issues, like entitlement spending.

Weird, they left out Dubya/GOP's UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts for the rich AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion (where, by GOP LAW, the Gov't CAN'T negotiate with the pharmaceutical Comps, go figure!!!!)

You forget that the Democratic solution was for DOUBLE THE PRICE of Bushes plan................
We went to War with the votes from the Dems as well..................after 3,000 Americans died.................but you would have done what................Mr. Chamberland.............................Your side always wanted more back then, even when you got half of what you wanted...........

Then you took the money with Obamacare................So spare me your BS>

Dems wanted to double it? LIAR

60% OF ems voted against Dubya's war of choice. Most of the rest were LIED to by the Bush admin.

Yep, ACA 100% FUNDED, unlike ANYTHING the GOP passes


3,000 died? Oh right from Afghanistan, what did Saddam have to do with it??? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And on average, according to the report, the below-$100,000 taxpayers paid 35 percent of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll)

Let's take $100,000 as the income figure in 2014.
That single taxpayer pays $7,650 in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Now his standard deduction is $6200 and his personal exemption is $3950, leaving his taxable income at
$89850. According to the 2014 tax tables, his Federal Income Tax is $18,341.
$25,991 combined. Less than 29%.

The millionaire pays $7254 in Social Security on his first $117,000 in income and $14,500 in Medicare taxes.
His personal exemption is phased out but he can still use the $6200 standard deduction.
His taxable income of $993,800 gives him a Federal Income Tax of $345,817.60.
$367,571.60 combined. Almost 37%.

A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k and pay 20% federal tax of that figure which is 2% of total income.

A millionaire would reduce his/her taxable income through the many tax loopholes available to $100k

By all means, explain further.
Which loopholes can reduce taxable income by $900,000?
Spell them out.

 

[Dad2three]

work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?

work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?

What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?

Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!

So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.

I'm glad you were able to admit your error.

Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

View attachment 48284

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol


Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

 

[Dad2three]

Where did the trust funds, raided to the tune of $3+ trillion the past 30 years go then????

What trust funds do you speak of? You mean Social Security? Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off. This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor. All died under the age which they could collect Social Security. What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?

It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS" BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!

A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms. And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in. Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional. If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund. After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What trust funds do you speak of? You mean Social Security? Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off. This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor. All died under the age which they could collect Social Security. What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?

It goes to their survivors.

Only if their survivors are a spouse or children. Other than that, it's money lost.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

work so well? Oh you meant take revenues from the treasury?

What was government capital gains revenue at 28%? At 20%?

Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!

So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.

I'm glad you were able to admit your error.

Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

View attachment 48284

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol


Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol

It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What trust funds do you speak of? You mean Social Security? Social Security is a prime example of government rip-off. This year I had a family member pass away, a close friend, and last year, my neighbor. All died under the age which they could collect Social Security. What happened to all that money they (and their employers) contributed to this fund?

It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS" BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!

A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms. And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in. Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional. If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund. After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.

 

[thanatos144]

Mark Levin is right you can't love your kids and support progressivism since it destroys thier future for your gain

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Dad2three]

Less at 20% than 28% would've, according to EVERY serious economist at least!

So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.

I'm glad you were able to admit your error.

Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

View attachment 48284

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol


Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol

It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.

NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE


YES, IF YOU ARE THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE? But sorry the capital gains tax "boom" reflected SHORT TERM PROFITS AT LOWER RATES THAT WERE PUSHED FORWARD



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.



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

ANTI Tax Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":



Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.

Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange

 

[Dad2three]

It's a PAY AS YOU GO SYSTEM (of course Ronnie increase SS taxes in 1986 to "save SS" BUT USED THE EXTRA REVENUES TO FUND GOV'T THE NEXT 30 YEARS. Weird you don't get that!

A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms. And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in. Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional. If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund. After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.

Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.

 

[Dad2three]

Mark Levin is right you can't love your kids and support progressivism since it destroys thier future for your gain

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's the problem with the hucksters like (the Moronic One) Levin, you morons buy into their crap. It WASN'T blowing up spending WHILE gutting tax revenues that hurt US under Reagan/Dubya, it WASN'T Ronnie/Dubya ignoring regulator warnings about the Banksters, it was policies that help society? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the revenue increased, even though the rate went down. It actually added revenue to the Treasury.

I'm glad you were able to admit your error.

Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

View attachment 48284

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol


Keep TRYING Bubba


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

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."


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



The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don’t say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

The Impact of Tax Cuts

YEP, Look at 5 year avg's? lol

It's true, they still collect more with the lower rate.

NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE


YES, IF YOU ARE THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CURVE? But sorry the capital gains tax "boom" reflected SHORT TERM PROFITS AT LOWER RATES THAT WERE PUSHED FORWARD



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.



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

ANTI Tax Foundation's Gerald Prante responded as follows to then-ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson's statement that "history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up":



Gibson's implying that cutting capital gains taxes raises tax revenues by the mere time series correlation he cited was a stretch. Much of the short-run response to changes in the capital gains tax rate are for tax timing purposes. This is a well-known fact, and it is why CBO projects a huge spike in capital gains collections in 2010 (the last year of the scheduled low 15% rate on long-term gains) and thereby also a large decline in 2011 (when the rate on long-term gains is scheduled to revert to 20%) under current law. There is no doubt some revenue feedback will occur over the long-run from lower capital gains tax rates spurring investment, but most estimates would say that we are currently on the left side of the Laffer Curve with respect to capital gains.

Obama and Gibson Capital Gains Tax Exchange

NO serious economists thinks you cut taxes AND bring in more revenues, NONE

Maybe the serious economists should look at the drop in capital gains revenue when the rate was hiked?
Maybe they can look at the increase in capital gains revenue when the rate was cut?
You can look at the chart I posted.
Let me know if the big numbers are too confusing.
I'm always glad to help stupid people like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A President can't do that, only Congress can which of course was Democrat during Reagan's two terms. And it can be rescinded by the following administrations.

For the past couple of years, SS has been paying out more than it's taking in. Next year, SS disability will be completely broke unless we ask China to secure funds to it.

This "pay as you go" system as you call it is mandatory--not optional. If it were optional, more intelligent people would opt out and invest that money in a slow-growth conservative fund. After all, for most American workers, SS contributions are the second highest tax next to FICA which is another fancy name for SS anyway.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

When the government takes 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, they make it harder for you to save.

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

SS keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty, the best anti poverty program EVER

Yes, we saw how they saved PRE SS.

If we privatized it, they'd save at least 12.4%.

Yep, those "free market" hucksters would LOVE that.

People saving for themselves, big government lovers would hate that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What tax breaks?
And where is tuition $600?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What tax breaks?
And where is tuition $600?

Walmart employees deliver chairman $7.8 bn 'tax bill' for company's tax breaks

"A report released this week showed Walmart is the beneficiary of $7.8 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies from the US tax system. "

"The report – “Walmart on Tax Day: How Taxpayers Subsidize America's Biggest Employer and Richest Family” – from the public advocacy group American for Tax Fairness (ATF) said the company’s low wages and lack of benefits saves it about $6.2 billion annually, as many employees are forced to depend on government programs like food stamps to get by."

"The $6.2 billion figure is based on data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce, which found that “a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers,” according to ATF."

"Tax breaks and loopholes in the US tax code allow the mega-corporation to dodge around $1 billion in taxes per year, ATF’s report found."

"The Waltons, owners of more than 50 percent of the corporation’s shares, are legally able to bypass paying $607 million in federal taxes on their company dividends, according to ATF. This is because investment income is taxed at a lower bracket than regular income."

Report: Walmart on Tax Day | Americans for Tax Fairness

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart_On_Tax_Day_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Here's the report:

"Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion annually in mostly federal taxpayer subsidies. The reason: Walmart pays its employees so little that many of them rely on food stamps, healthcare and other taxpayer-funded programs.
• Walmart avoids an estimated $1 billion in federal taxes each year. The reason: Walmart uses tax breaks and loopholes, including a strategy known as accelerated depreciation that allows it to write off capital investments considerably faster than the assets actually wear out.
• The Waltons avoid an estimated $607 million in federal taxes on their Walmart dividends. The reason: income from investments is taxed at a much lower tax rate than income from salaries and wages.

In addition to the $7.8 billion in annual subsidies and tax breaks, the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars.

Walmart also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer’s sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year"

 

[OnePercenter]

Most Americans aren't saving a dime and will need ss.

Or lost all or most of their retirement due to irresponsible Republicans in 2008.