Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Markle]

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

How many people earn over $10 million per year? How much money would be collected from them each year?

 

[Markle]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004.

We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41.

Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991.

The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa.

You think having sales on alternating weeks is breaking the law?

That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Segmenting the market isn't illegal.

They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition

Wow! You're confused.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Lowes is using company resources to obtain economic gain by NOT building a store in a town with an Ingles?

There oughta be a law!!! All three chains must be forced, FORCED I say, to have a store in every town. DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well you're in luck, because they mostly pay for the government. As I posted earlier, if we had a 70% federal income tax rate on the rich, with their local taxes, they would be paying about 85% of their earnings to various governments depending on where they lived. Would you work if government was going to take 85% of all you earn? Well......neither would they. Then that would have a drastic effect on our economy and markets where many of us have our retirement plans in.

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

Of course you'd be fine with that. You're not paying it.

Yes only those who are benefitting from all the cronyism would be paying it. Seems right that they should.

I don't see the justification.

We all live in this country. We all benefit from this country. Because some exercised our system to full advantage, why should they be obligated to support the rest of us when it comes to taxation? I mean.......the government doesn't pick poor people or rich people. We make ourselves what we want to be in most cases. I exclude the mentally or physically disabled of course.

The problem I have with all this is the mentality. If you ask somebody with a million dollars if they are rich, they would tell you no, the guy with ten million dollars is rich. If you ask the guy with ten million dollars if he was rich, he would tell you no, the guy with a hundred million dollars is rich, and on and on it goes.

So the question is, who is the arbiter of who has too much?

You see, I kind of relate to how people with money feel; being targeted for no reason other than money. My city decided to call ass on landlords. They created ridiculous regulations and fees we now have to pay. When I contacted my Councilman and complained, he told me the Mayor told him that landlords are making too much money in his city, and it's about time we shared our wealth.

To that I asked him if the Mayor would like to setup a meeting with me and show me where this wealth is, because my tax preparer certainly couldn't find it. Between my rentals and full-time job, I get a refund from the government nearly every year.

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

They are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to go back to when the country was 90% white?

 

[dblack]

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

 

[danielpalos]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

equal protection of the law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course you'd be fine with that. You're not paying it.

Yes only those who are benefitting from all the cronyism would be paying it. Seems right that they should.

I don't see the justification.

We all live in this country. We all benefit from this country. Because some exercised our system to full advantage, why should they be obligated to support the rest of us when it comes to taxation? I mean.......the government doesn't pick poor people or rich people. We make ourselves what we want to be in most cases. I exclude the mentally or physically disabled of course.

The problem I have with all this is the mentality. If you ask somebody with a million dollars if they are rich, they would tell you no, the guy with ten million dollars is rich. If you ask the guy with ten million dollars if he was rich, he would tell you no, the guy with a hundred million dollars is rich, and on and on it goes.

So the question is, who is the arbiter of who has too much?

You see, I kind of relate to how people with money feel; being targeted for no reason other than money. My city decided to call ass on landlords. They created ridiculous regulations and fees we now have to pay. When I contacted my Councilman and complained, he told me the Mayor told him that landlords are making too much money in his city, and it's about time we shared our wealth.

To that I asked him if the Mayor would like to setup a meeting with me and show me where this wealth is, because my tax preparer certainly couldn't find it. Between my rentals and full-time job, I get a refund from the government nearly every year.

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

 

[danielpalos]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

Some on the left are for increasing the minimum wage to increase tax revenue.

 

[Brain357]

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

How many people earn over $10 million per year? How much money would be collected from them each year?

More than is collected now.

 

[Brain357]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004.

We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41.

Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991.

The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

And all the corporate welfare? All the government contracts? The rich benefit the most.

 

[Brain357]

Yes only those who are benefitting from all the cronyism would be paying it. Seems right that they should.

I don't see the justification.

We all live in this country. We all benefit from this country. Because some exercised our system to full advantage, why should they be obligated to support the rest of us when it comes to taxation? I mean.......the government doesn't pick poor people or rich people. We make ourselves what we want to be in most cases. I exclude the mentally or physically disabled of course.

The problem I have with all this is the mentality. If you ask somebody with a million dollars if they are rich, they would tell you no, the guy with ten million dollars is rich. If you ask the guy with ten million dollars if he was rich, he would tell you no, the guy with a hundred million dollars is rich, and on and on it goes.

So the question is, who is the arbiter of who has too much?

You see, I kind of relate to how people with money feel; being targeted for no reason other than money. My city decided to call ass on landlords. They created ridiculous regulations and fees we now have to pay. When I contacted my Councilman and complained, he told me the Mayor told him that landlords are making too much money in his city, and it's about time we shared our wealth.

To that I asked him if the Mayor would like to setup a meeting with me and show me where this wealth is, because my tax preparer certainly couldn't find it. Between my rentals and full-time job, I get a refund from the government nearly every year.

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't see the justification.

We all live in this country. We all benefit from this country. Because some exercised our system to full advantage, why should they be obligated to support the rest of us when it comes to taxation? I mean.......the government doesn't pick poor people or rich people. We make ourselves what we want to be in most cases. I exclude the mentally or physically disabled of course.

The problem I have with all this is the mentality. If you ask somebody with a million dollars if they are rich, they would tell you no, the guy with ten million dollars is rich. If you ask the guy with ten million dollars if he was rich, he would tell you no, the guy with a hundred million dollars is rich, and on and on it goes.

So the question is, who is the arbiter of who has too much?

You see, I kind of relate to how people with money feel; being targeted for no reason other than money. My city decided to call ass on landlords. They created ridiculous regulations and fees we now have to pay. When I contacted my Councilman and complained, he told me the Mayor told him that landlords are making too much money in his city, and it's about time we shared our wealth.

To that I asked him if the Mayor would like to setup a meeting with me and show me where this wealth is, because my tax preparer certainly couldn't find it. Between my rentals and full-time job, I get a refund from the government nearly every year.

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

 

[Brain357]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

So which one of these can a non-rich person not do?

 

[Brain357]

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

So which one of these can a non-rich person not do?

Just about all of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

How many people earn over $10 million per year? How much money would be collected from them each year?

More than is collected now.

Absolutely! It worked for Connecticut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see the justification.

We all live in this country. We all benefit from this country. Because some exercised our system to full advantage, why should they be obligated to support the rest of us when it comes to taxation? I mean.......the government doesn't pick poor people or rich people. We make ourselves what we want to be in most cases. I exclude the mentally or physically disabled of course.

The problem I have with all this is the mentality. If you ask somebody with a million dollars if they are rich, they would tell you no, the guy with ten million dollars is rich. If you ask the guy with ten million dollars if he was rich, he would tell you no, the guy with a hundred million dollars is rich, and on and on it goes.

So the question is, who is the arbiter of who has too much?

You see, I kind of relate to how people with money feel; being targeted for no reason other than money. My city decided to call ass on landlords. They created ridiculous regulations and fees we now have to pay. When I contacted my Councilman and complained, he told me the Mayor told him that landlords are making too much money in his city, and it's about time we shared our wealth.

To that I asked him if the Mayor would like to setup a meeting with me and show me where this wealth is, because my tax preparer certainly couldn't find it. Between my rentals and full-time job, I get a refund from the government nearly every year.

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

The rich mostly benefited from themselves; their hard work, their extensive education, their risky investments.

Only in your fantasy land Ray. In reality they benefited from corporate welfare and cronyism.

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

That's terrible!

Do you have a list?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most don't get corporate welfare. Rich people themselves certainly don't; their companies may in some rare cases, but not their individual income.

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

So which one of these can a non-rich person not do?

Just about all of them.

No, I read them, and there is nothing there that exclusively applies to rich people only. The only possible one is taking less in pay and receiving larger stock options. However if you are a company owner of any size, you can do the same thing, even if you make less than six figures.

 

[Brain357]

Yes and they benefit. The tax system is also full of loop holes only the rich can benefit from.

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

So which one of these can a non-rich person not do?

Just about all of them.

No, I read them, and there is nothing there that exclusively applies to rich people only. The only possible one is taking less in pay and receiving larger stock options. However if you are a company owner of any size, you can do the same thing, even if you make less than six figures.

Then tell me how you take advantage of those things.