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

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean individual income? Such as what?

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

 

[danielpalos]

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

Because Government still costs and can Only be financed forever in right wing fantasy.

Let's increase the minimum wage to raise tax revenue.

 

[Brain357]

How the Mega-Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

 

[progressive hunter]

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

only a moron thinks tax cuts pay for themselves,,,

and those same benefits apply to everyone not just the rich,,,

and the deficits are due to overspending not from a lack of tax revenue

 

[Brain357]

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

only a moron thinks tax cuts pay for themselves,,,

and those same benefits apply to everyone not just the rich,,,

and the deficits are due to overspending not from a lack of tax revenue

Yes repubs seem to be a bunch of morons, cause they sure bought that tax cuts pay for themselves....

 

[progressive hunter]

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

only a moron thinks tax cuts pay for themselves,,,

and those same benefits apply to everyone not just the rich,,,

and the deficits are due to overspending not from a lack of tax revenue

Yes repubs seem to be a bunch of morons, cause they sure bought that tax cuts pay for themselves....

I'm not a repube or a democrat,,,,and never will be

 

[Brain357]

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

only a moron thinks tax cuts pay for themselves,,,

and those same benefits apply to everyone not just the rich,,,

and the deficits are due to overspending not from a lack of tax revenue

Yes repubs seem to be a bunch of morons, cause they sure bought that tax cuts pay for themselves....

I'm not a repube or a democrat,,,,and never will be

Neither am I. Unlikely I will be either in the future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't.

Most normal workers use the standard deduction, so they benefitted more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I don't because it's not worth my time. I do have hundreds of write-offs every year. However most landlords do.

Right, it's only worth the time of the very wealthy. That is the point.

No, your point was that laws were written specifically for rich people. That's not the case which is why I questioned it. It may benefit them to use such loopholes, but that doesn't mean they aren't available to me.

For instance a company owner can write-off office space as an expense. Legally, I can do the same in my house. I actually have a room that I use specifically as an office, but it's not worth the time to do so. You can write-off postage for your business too. If you mail thousands of letters and packages every year, it may be worth your time. I can do the same, but my write-off would only be about twenty bucks a year or so.

So they benefit the rich a lot and aren't even worth you time.

No, but that's a personal choice--not a government choice.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

Then don't sign a non-compete. Don't take the job. Go someplace else and work.

If you are saying the employee is getting nothing from the employer, then they already have the skills, and should "put their services on the market and get a raise", right? You don't have to get a job with a non-compete to do that.

Again... the problem is when you get a job, and they train you, and then you immediately jump ship and work for a competitor.

Again.... you yourself would have a fit, if someone did that to you, and started hurting your business. You would be the first to support the idea of a non-compete if you were the one being harmed by an ex-employee that you trained at your expense, who then harmed your business.

And you are lying if you say otherwise. Honestly, don't even try. You are just lying to me, if you claim you wouldn't.

That can't be done as too many corps require a non compete now. What world are you living in? Nobody jumps ship if they are paid and treated well. Non competes are not capitalism. You sure know your anti capitalism propaganda.

Again, I've had about 30 different jobs. I'm like a professional new employee. I've had 2 non-competes. One was for contract IT support, which was basically, don't open an IT company and compete against us.

It only lasted 2 years, and was only for the same city. If I drove 1 hour to Dayton, I was good.

The other was for a bank, which was more about not giving trade secrets.

My uncle was an engineer for a large corporation. He started his own business, and they couldn't stop him. They did nothing. They complained, sent letters, whined a lot.. but in the end non-competes are pretty limited.

Perspective | Even janitors have noncompetes now. Nobody is safe.

Seems a little unreasonable.

This year, legislation has been introduced in at least six states that would tighten the legal standards the agreements have to meet in order to be enforced, or make certain types of them illegal outright. Four states passed laws on the issue last year, including Illinois, which prohibited noncompete agreements for employees who earn $13 an hour or less.​

Looks like a solution is already starting to be implemented.

 

[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?

More than is collected now.

No one is surprised that you have NOTHING.

"More than is collected now". isn't an answer, it is a graphic display of desperation. Unless the amount collected is at least hundreds of billions, it really doesn't help anything, does it?

 

[progressive hunter]

The tax strategy behind 'Morning Joe' stars Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski's Florida 'studio'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax strategy behind 'Morning Joe' stars Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski's Florida 'studio'

That's ridiculous!!
Rich people never change their behavior based on tax rates.
Especially rich liberals.

 

[Andylusion]

That link listed loop holes that everyone can use.

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

 

[Brain357]

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

Then don't sign a non-compete. Don't take the job. Go someplace else and work.

If you are saying the employee is getting nothing from the employer, then they already have the skills, and should "put their services on the market and get a raise", right? You don't have to get a job with a non-compete to do that.

Again... the problem is when you get a job, and they train you, and then you immediately jump ship and work for a competitor.

Again.... you yourself would have a fit, if someone did that to you, and started hurting your business. You would be the first to support the idea of a non-compete if you were the one being harmed by an ex-employee that you trained at your expense, who then harmed your business.

And you are lying if you say otherwise. Honestly, don't even try. You are just lying to me, if you claim you wouldn't.

That can't be done as too many corps require a non compete now. What world are you living in? Nobody jumps ship if they are paid and treated well. Non competes are not capitalism. You sure know your anti capitalism propaganda.

Again, I've had about 30 different jobs. I'm like a professional new employee. I've had 2 non-competes. One was for contract IT support, which was basically, don't open an IT company and compete against us.

It only lasted 2 years, and was only for the same city. If I drove 1 hour to Dayton, I was good.

The other was for a bank, which was more about not giving trade secrets.

My uncle was an engineer for a large corporation. He started his own business, and they couldn't stop him. They did nothing. They complained, sent letters, whined a lot.. but in the end non-competes are pretty limited.

Perspective | Even janitors have noncompetes now. Nobody is safe.

Seems a little unreasonable.

This year, legislation has been introduced in at least six states that would tighten the legal standards the agreements have to meet in order to be enforced, or make certain types of them illegal outright. Four states passed laws on the issue last year, including Illinois, which prohibited noncompete agreements for employees who earn $13 an hour or less.​

Looks like a solution is already starting to be implemented.

That's good to see, but they should all just be outlawed. At least if we want to be a capitalist economy.

 

[Winston]

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.

Bogus, and bogus website, with data that is 15 years old.

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004 | Tax Foundation

Try again.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah you think the average worker is doing lots of income modification? You are funny.

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

The left may have started them, but all politicians embrace them now.

While spending is the problem, politicians aren't going to cut it. 2 years of full republican control and deficits exploded. At least dems tax and spend. Repubs spend and borrow. See how they both spend? We need to keep voting them all out till they start being responsible.

 

[Winston]

I benefit zero from all the federal income taxes I’ve ever paid... Just like millions of other Americans

You are a dumbass.

 

[Winston]

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!

No, having sales on alternate weeks is not illegal, except when it is done through a formal or informal agreement by competitors. And the same thing applies to the carving up of a market. It is not illegal for there not to be competing stores in an area, but it is illegal for the stores to enter into a formal or informal agreement agreeing NOT to compete.

And yes, when they have such an agreement and are able to charge prices higher than those that would be present in a FREE, competitive market they are collecting "rents" in the form of those excess profits.

There can be no doubt, the rent seeking in the United States economy has reached extreme levels. As explained by The Economist, more than two years ago and BEFORE the corporate tax cut--



But high profits across a whole economy can be a sign of sickness. They can signal the existence of firms more adept at siphoning wealth off than creating it afresh, such as those that exploit monopolies. If companies capture more profits than they can spend, it can lead to a shortfall of demand. This has been a pressing problem in America. It is not that firms are underinvesting by historical standards. Relative to assets, sales and GDP, the level of investment is pretty normal. But domestic cash flows are so high that they still have pots of cash left over after investment: about $800 billion a year.

Too much of a good thing

I suggest reading the entire article, but in the quote above pay special attention to the "firms more adept at siphoning wealth off than creating it afresh". Getting more of the pie that is already there, not making more fresh pie---classic rent seeking.

Profits are good. Water is good. Profits are vital for a functioning economy. Water is vital for life itself. But too much profit can absolutely KILL an economy and even a nation itself just like too much water can kill a person. We are in dangerous territory and the current administration economic policies are only pushing us further to the edge.

 

[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.

Bogus, and bogus website, with data that is 15 years old.

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004 | Tax Foundation

Try again.

You're right, things have gotten worse for higher income households and far better (more benefits) for lower income households.

Try again!