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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, is that really out there. Losing government benefits is paying tax??? I have no idea how they came up with that one. The only honest point about the article is that our government discourages people from bettering themselves. Penalizing success and rewarding failure.

what that is , is college thinking,,,

they got to the point in the article/issue that made them feel warm and fuzzy and then quit thinking,, they are taught what to think and not how to think

I guess they don't understand that paying taxes is when you earn money, and give government a portion of what you made. What this article is saying is that when government gives you less or cuts you off totally, that's being taxed. How can you be taxed on something that wasn't yours in the first place; something you never earned?

The point is pretty clear, it is about keeping the dollars you earn. If someone getting the EITC at the lower income levels works additional hours they lose some of the EITC. If they are getting SNAP benefits they lose some of those benefits. If they are Medicaid beneficiaries they could lose that benefit. And yes, they do pay Social Security taxes on any additional income. So when everything is settled they get to KEEP only thirty cents out of every additional dollar earned. If you admonish them for not working for that thirty cents on the dollar you sure as hell can't complain if we tax the wealthy to the extent that they only get thirty cents on the dollar.

That article is comparing apples to oranges. You are not being taxed by losing benefits. When the government gives you benefits, it was never yours in the first place. Looking at it your way, all of us working people are getting taxed at 80% because we don't receive anything from the government. It's a perverse way to try and measure things.

You are dodging the real question. What part of the poor only getting to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar in income do you not understand and how is that different than a rich person who only gets to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar of income?

Simple answer, you are playing bait and switch.

Those low income workers keep all the money they earn except for local taxes which many times, they get a refund of. They simply lose benefits that they never worked for--not wages.

When you take money from a person that earned it be they an hourly worker or billionaire, you are taking away something they created. You are taking away something they earned. Nobody earns social goodies. Those are gifts; gifts from us taxpayers that do pay into federal income tax.

What the writer of your article did was say when a person creates income, the benefits they lost come out of their pay. It doesn't, not one red cent. They lose their benefits which was never their personal possession in the first place.

 

[Winston]

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

Who the hell said anything about income taxes. Again, the working poor, at some of the lowest income levels, only get to keep thirty cents out of each additional dollar of income. The rest is eaten up by loss of the EITC, loss of SNAP benefits, and yes, the Social Security tax on the additional income. So how is that different than a rich person not getting to keep but thirty cents on the dollar? Except for the fact that the rich person is not struggling to keep food on the table, or pay the rent, or keep the lights on.

 

[Winston]

what that is , is college thinking,,,

they got to the point in the article/issue that made them feel warm and fuzzy and then quit thinking,, they are taught what to think and not how to think

I guess they don't understand that paying taxes is when you earn money, and give government a portion of what you made. What this article is saying is that when government gives you less or cuts you off totally, that's being taxed. How can you be taxed on something that wasn't yours in the first place; something you never earned?

The point is pretty clear, it is about keeping the dollars you earn. If someone getting the EITC at the lower income levels works additional hours they lose some of the EITC. If they are getting SNAP benefits they lose some of those benefits. If they are Medicaid beneficiaries they could lose that benefit. And yes, they do pay Social Security taxes on any additional income. So when everything is settled they get to KEEP only thirty cents out of every additional dollar earned. If you admonish them for not working for that thirty cents on the dollar you sure as hell can't complain if we tax the wealthy to the extent that they only get thirty cents on the dollar.

That article is comparing apples to oranges. You are not being taxed by losing benefits. When the government gives you benefits, it was never yours in the first place. Looking at it your way, all of us working people are getting taxed at 80% because we don't receive anything from the government. It's a perverse way to try and measure things.

You are dodging the real question. What part of the poor only getting to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar in income do you not understand and how is that different than a rich person who only gets to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar of income?

Simple answer, you are playing bait and switch.

Those low income workers keep all the money they earn except for local taxes which many times, they get a refund of. They simply lose benefits that they never worked for--not wages.

When you take money from a person that earned it be they an hourly worker or billionaire, you are taking away something they created. You are taking away something they earned. Nobody earns social goodies. Those are gifts; gifts from us taxpayers that do pay into federal income tax.

What the writer of your article did was say when a person creates income, the benefits they lost come out of their pay. It doesn't, not one red cent. They lose their benefits which was never their personal possession in the first place.

But those benefits are the same as income to that poor person. They are used to buy food and pay the rent. See, I have a pretty good memory and I remember you complaining about one of your renters not willing to work additional hours because they would lose those benefits. In short, they were not willing to work for only thirty cents on the dollar. But you expected them to so you could get your rent money. Me, I expect the rich to work for thirty cents on the dollar because people like you expect the poor to do the same. And perhaps more importantly, your position, that the rich should not have to work for thirty cents on the dollar but the poor should simply because they are collecting benefits, is nothing short of cognitive dissonance. At the very least, you should support changes in social programs that do not punitively damage individuals for attempting to earn additional income. If those were in place already you might have gotten your rent money and avoided the pain of an eviction.

 

[Markle]

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

How do you propose that we motivate people to get off the welfare rolls and onto the payrolls?

As you know, Democrats are responsible for the issue of encouraging welfare recipients to NOT work and continue to rely on taxpayers to support them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess they don't understand that paying taxes is when you earn money, and give government a portion of what you made. What this article is saying is that when government gives you less or cuts you off totally, that's being taxed. How can you be taxed on something that wasn't yours in the first place; something you never earned?

The point is pretty clear, it is about keeping the dollars you earn. If someone getting the EITC at the lower income levels works additional hours they lose some of the EITC. If they are getting SNAP benefits they lose some of those benefits. If they are Medicaid beneficiaries they could lose that benefit. And yes, they do pay Social Security taxes on any additional income. So when everything is settled they get to KEEP only thirty cents out of every additional dollar earned. If you admonish them for not working for that thirty cents on the dollar you sure as hell can't complain if we tax the wealthy to the extent that they only get thirty cents on the dollar.

That article is comparing apples to oranges. You are not being taxed by losing benefits. When the government gives you benefits, it was never yours in the first place. Looking at it your way, all of us working people are getting taxed at 80% because we don't receive anything from the government. It's a perverse way to try and measure things.

You are dodging the real question. What part of the poor only getting to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar in income do you not understand and how is that different than a rich person who only gets to keep thirty cents of each additional dollar of income?

Simple answer, you are playing bait and switch.

Those low income workers keep all the money they earn except for local taxes which many times, they get a refund of. They simply lose benefits that they never worked for--not wages.

When you take money from a person that earned it be they an hourly worker or billionaire, you are taking away something they created. You are taking away something they earned. Nobody earns social goodies. Those are gifts; gifts from us taxpayers that do pay into federal income tax.

What the writer of your article did was say when a person creates income, the benefits they lost come out of their pay. It doesn't, not one red cent. They lose their benefits which was never their personal possession in the first place.

But those benefits are the same as income to that poor person. They are used to buy food and pay the rent. See, I have a pretty good memory and I remember you complaining about one of your renters not willing to work additional hours because they would lose those benefits. In short, they were not willing to work for only thirty cents on the dollar. But you expected them to so you could get your rent money. Me, I expect the rich to work for thirty cents on the dollar because people like you expect the poor to do the same. And perhaps more importantly, your position, that the rich should not have to work for thirty cents on the dollar but the poor should simply because they are collecting benefits, is nothing short of cognitive dissonance. At the very least, you should support changes in social programs that do not punitively damage individuals for attempting to earn additional income. If those were in place already you might have gotten your rent money and avoided the pain of an eviction.

No, it was not one of my renters. It's actually a few places I deliver and pickup from.

Some of our customers use temporary agencies. They do so to fluctuate their staff based on business activity. They also do so to try employees out before hiring them. In fact, several places I know you can only get a job there through a temp agency.

When things get busy, they would rather pay the temps overtime instead of getting more. When they ask those temps if they would like to work OT, many of them refuse for the reason you just gave. More money means less food stamps.

Of course they blow their chances of ever getting hired full-time with that company, but from what I'm told, they really don't care either. All they care about is getting their stipend and not letting anything interfere.

The temps they offer full-time jobs to are those who are not concerned about their goodies. They make those offers to people that show up on time or early, take an interest in doing the job instead of just being there for a paycheck, and people who learn the job to the best of their ability.

It's differerent when you take money away from somebody that earned it and somebody that didn't. It's not the same thing. Money is something you created. Social benefits are something you are given. When you take benefits away from somebody that makes more income, you are not taking away any of their income. You are reducing or eliminating their benefits because they are no longer needed.

Example: Between benefits and work, you bring home $1,500 per month combined. If you work more hours or make more money somehow, you still bring home $1,500, it's just that it's not other people's money. It's your money. You own that money. You didn't lose anything, not one dime. You still have the same income. The only difference is you work for it now.

 

[progressive hunter]

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

the part we dont understand is you keep pushing it after we proved its BULLSHIT


the poor dont pay income taxs

Who the hell said anything about income taxes. Again, the working poor, at some of the lowest income levels, only get to keep thirty cents out of each additional dollar of income. The rest is eaten up by loss of the EITC, loss of SNAP benefits, and yes, the Social Security tax on the additional income. So how is that different than a rich person not getting to keep but thirty cents on the dollar? Except for the fact that the rich person is not struggling to keep food on the table, or pay the rent, or keep the lights on.

you gat a lot of crazy going on there

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

How do you propose that we motivate people to get off the welfare rolls and onto the payrolls?

As you know, Democrats are responsible for the issue of encouraging welfare recipients to NOT work and continue to rely on taxpayers to support them.

I hate to say this at the risk of sounding like a Democrat, but universal income would eliminate that (and other) problems.

We eliminate all federal social programs. We replace it with universal income. That means every legal adult in the US gets a check from the federal government. We'll just say for the sake of discussion, the check is for $16,000 a year.

It sounds nice, but out of that, you have to create a retirement plan because there would no longer be Social Security. No more Medicare either. You have to get your own insurance company and pay into it for long term care.

That would be a solution to a host of problems. First off, we wouldn't have this rivalry between the working and non-working. If you can make it on 16K a year, fine, don't work. If you wish to use that 16K for other things and still work, better yet. If you want children, you better be able to take care of them with your income because there would be no more social programs for kids. The more kids you have, the more you need to pay for them just like working people.

HUD people would not be able to afford the suburbs because there wouldn't be any HUD. If you are a married couple, you can easily afford college for your children. You have a combined government income of 32K a year, plus your child will also get 16K a year because he or she is an adult. It would also solve our health insurance problems. If you are working and don't have insurance, you can use part or all of your 16K for health insurance.

One of the problems with our system today is you are rewarded for not working. Universal income would do the opposite. It would reward you for working and inspire more to do it. Poor people also have children for the same reason. The more kids you have, the more food stamps, the larger HUD home, and the more on our already taxed Medicaid system.

 

[danielpalos]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

If you don't bother to read the link don't waste everyone's time by responding.

I read enough of it to know it was click bait at best, and its premise was clearly biased bordering on an outright lie

like i said,,,the poor dont pay income tax

the Poor pay more tax as a percentage of income. income tax is not the Only tax that affects the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Hypothetical: A billionaire pays 99% of his billion to uncle sam. A trucker pays 20% of his 60k to uncle. Who's better off afterward? Why do so many of the working class spend so much of their valuable time defending the very wealthy who wouldn't be so wealthy if they weren't able to legally bribe congress critters to pass tax legislation in their favor?

So instead, they give their money to government. Who does that help?

It's just the entire concept of taking from people in a punitive way. The rich know it. Tobacco users know it. People without health insurance know it. As a landlord, I know it.

I don't think the founders wanted government taxing people into submission because those targeted happen to be mortal enemies of politicians or parties.

The government spends all the money it takes in. The wealthy do not. That whole Paradox of Thrift thing, fundamental economics, that you can't seem to comprehend.

I see, so you want to see a country where nobody has anything saved. Isn't that a problem in our country already?

Yeah, government spends everything they get and more. Funding Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR, studies on why some turtles are gay. All that foreign aid sure helps our economy, doesn't it?

Who do you think supports our charities in this country, the homeless? Who builds all those tall buildings downtown, donates to colleges and hospitals? Who provides us with jobs, the government?

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror require Labor.

 

[danielpalos]

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

Wow, is that really out there. Losing government benefits is paying tax??? I have no idea how they came up with that one. The only honest point about the article is that our government discourages people from bettering themselves. Penalizing success and rewarding failure.

what that is , is college thinking,,,

they got to the point in the article/issue that made them feel warm and fuzzy and then quit thinking,, they are taught what to think and not how to think

I guess they don't understand that paying taxes is when you earn money, and give government a portion of what you made. What this article is saying is that when government gives you less or cuts you off totally, that's being taxed. How can you be taxed on something that wasn't yours in the first place; something you never earned?

The point is pretty clear, it is about keeping the dollars you earn. If someone getting the EITC at the lower income levels works additional hours they lose some of the EITC. If they are getting SNAP benefits they lose some of those benefits. If they are Medicaid beneficiaries they could lose that benefit. And yes, they do pay Social Security taxes on any additional income. So when everything is settled they get to KEEP only thirty cents out of every additional dollar earned. If you admonish them for not working for that thirty cents on the dollar you sure as hell can't complain if we tax the wealthy to the extent that they only get thirty cents on the dollar.

That article is comparing apples to oranges. You are not being taxed by losing benefits. When the government gives you benefits, it was never yours in the first place. Looking at it your way, all of us working people are getting taxed at 80% because we don't receive anything from the government. It's a perverse way to try and measure things.

quit and go on welfare. why complain about it. you can't be that moral if you are whining about the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

What part of the poor only keeping thirty cents out of every additional dollar they make at the lowest income levels do you not understand? And just how is that different than a rich person only getting to keep thirty cents out of every additional dollar. And finally, who the hell said the marginal tax rate only uses the income tax in it's calculation. I mean there is a difference in stupid and ignorant. Welcome to stupid.

How do you propose that we motivate people to get off the welfare rolls and onto the payrolls?

As you know, Democrats are responsible for the issue of encouraging welfare recipients to NOT work and continue to rely on taxpayers to support them.

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. it is a reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. capitalism works.

 

[U2Edge]

AGAIN, the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was ALWAYS above 70% EVERY YEAR! The rich worked just as hard if not harder back then given that average GDP growth per year was much higher in those years, 1945-1980, than it has been since the year 2000.

The top federal tax rate was only 28% in 1990. Then Bush and Clinton increased the top federal rate to 40% by 1995! The rich did not flee or stop working. The economy took off!

WE KNOW WE CAN RAISE THE TOP FEDERAL RATE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THE TOP FEDERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN THAT HIGH IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY OF THE CONSEQUENCES YOU ALLEGE!

Those were different times my friend. There were few places to move companies and still be able to conduct business in the US. That's not the case today. However businesses still moved out during the 70's and kept moving out afterwards.

You see the results of increased taxes on the rich in places like California and New York. The rich people are packing their bags and heading for higher grounds. When states or cities try to get new businesses to move there, or expand businesses, they offer tax incentives like abatements and do so because they work. Here we were able to land two new Amazon facilities using abatements. They took deserted malls, leveled them, built state of the art facilities, and created hundreds of jobs.

Moving to avoid state and local taxes is one thing, moving out of the country to avoid federal taxes is another. Nearly all the other first world countries have much higher tax rates than the United States so the rich would be improving their situation by moving. Yes they could move to a third world country, but most will not take that risk.

Again, why not move to Somalia since you think taxes and government are such bad things?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

The overwhelming majority of government spending is for things that are necessary for the country and its citizens as a whole.

More than 80% of the federal spending goes to
The Military
Social Security
Medicare
interest on the debt
Medicaid
Veterans benefits

Why would you cut any of those areas? The Military is underfunded for the missions it is given by the country. Who's social security check are you going to take away? Who's medicare are you going to take away? Why would you cut veterans benefits?

Its wrong and terrible policy to starve these government programs in order to protect the earnings of the rich. It hurts the country which in the long run will end up hurting the rich as well.

I forgot about SS and Medicare/Medicaid. The Military is way too big, imo, and although it needs to be downsized slowly and smartly, we definitely need to think about why we are supporting such a huge force.

The military is actually undersized for the missions it is given. More actually needs to be spent on the military in order to adequately secure the United States needs around the world.

 

[U2Edge]

AGAIN, the top federal tax rate from 1945 to 1980 was ALWAYS above 70% EVERY YEAR! The rich worked just as hard if not harder back then given that average GDP growth per year was much higher in those years, 1945-1980, than it has been since the year 2000.

The top federal tax rate was only 28% in 1990. Then Bush and Clinton increased the top federal rate to 40% by 1995! The rich did not flee or stop working. The economy took off!

WE KNOW WE CAN RAISE THE TOP FEDERAL RATE MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THE TOP FEDERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN THAT HIGH IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY OF THE CONSEQUENCES YOU ALLEGE!

Those were different times my friend. There were few places to move companies and still be able to conduct business in the US. That's not the case today. However businesses still moved out during the 70's and kept moving out afterwards.

You see the results of increased taxes on the rich in places like California and New York. The rich people are packing their bags and heading for higher grounds. When states or cities try to get new businesses to move there, or expand businesses, they offer tax incentives like abatements and do so because they work. Here we were able to land two new Amazon facilities using abatements. They took deserted malls, leveled them, built state of the art facilities, and created hundreds of jobs.

Moving to avoid state and local taxes is one thing, moving out of the country to avoid federal taxes is another. Nearly all the other first world countries have much higher tax rates than the United States so the rich would be improving their situation by moving. Yes they could move to a third world country, but most will not take that risk.

Again, why not move to Somalia since you think taxes and government are such bad things?

Once again, I never said that.

However when it comes to the federal government, our Constitution states what our federal government is for. It says nothing about the dozens and dozens of social programs we have. It says nothing about foreign aid. It says nothing about cash for clunkers.

The problem is not revenue, the problem is spending.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

The overwhelming majority of government spending is for things that are necessary for the country and its citizens as a whole.

More than 80% of the federal spending goes to
The Military
Social Security
Medicare
interest on the debt
Medicaid
Veterans benefits

Why would you cut any of those areas? The Military is underfunded for the missions it is given by the country. Who's social security check are you going to take away? Who's medicare are you going to take away? Why would you cut veterans benefits?

Its wrong and terrible policy to starve these government programs in order to protect the earnings of the rich. It hurts the country which in the long run will end up hurting the rich as well.

Again, where is this spending authorized by our founders in the Constitution? I have no problem with taking care of our military as they always seem to get the short end of the stick, but social programs belong to that of a state--not the federal government.


The only thing authorized by the Constitution in your list is military spending because it's the federal governments sole responsibility to protect this nation and a military is the only way to do it.

https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/

We don't look to the constitution to decide what the United States should be spending its tax dollars on in 2019. The Constitution is not a spending guide.

So tell me, where are you going to cut current federal spending and by how much?

 

[U2Edge]

The Military is way too big, imo, and although it needs to be downsized slowly and smartly, we definitely need to think about why we are supporting such a huge force.

Oh, it's always the same reason, IMO: because the bigger it is, the more the pols can play with it, send it off to this and that Sandland to get the troops' legs blown off. I have a very low opinion of all these long, losing Forever Wars, and this tin soldiers for presidents business (every, EVERY president has his very own war and Trump will too) is why I am opposed to conscription.

Ever.

You don't understand the way are global interconnected world works in the 21st century and why its necessary for the United States and other countries to defend their interest and global stability around the world. This is no longer the 19th century or earlier. Those days are gone forever.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Edge, why don't you try it out, pay 70% of your income in federal taxes (not counting state, local and sales tax) and let us know how it works out for you?

I never suggested that the lower class or middle class should be paying that rate. We need those people in those income brackets to be spending most of their extra income on consumer products and services to drive economic growth. The 70% rate is a top federal rate which would only impact very high incomes, well above $200,000 dollars. Its been shown in the past that the rich can and will pay more and it will benefit the country and not hurt the economy. Its not about what is best for any ONE individual, but about what is best for the country as a whole.

 

[U2Edge]

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

Do you think people should get their social security checks? Medicare insurance? Medicaid? What about paying down the interest on the national debt and Veterans Benefits. Then yes there is the Military. That right there is over 80% of government spending.

View attachment 242270

What is "Labor" included with Social Security and Unemployment?

That I couldn't tell you. I only posted it to show we are not spending 80% of our budget on the military. Our budget today is over 4 trillion dollars, and we are not spending 3 trillion a year on military. That much I know.

I NEVER SAID WE WERE SPENDING 80% OF OUR BUDGET ON THE MILITARY!

I said over 80% of our budget consisted of the following:
Military Spending
Veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
interest on the debt

Turns out your pie chart says we are spending 86% of our budget on the above 6 things!

So again, I ask you, which of these things do you plan to cut and by how much?

 

[U2Edge]

When the rich are hoarding all the wealth there is not other choice.

There is no "the wealth" and never was. We do not live in a bubble where only so much money is around, and if one takes too much, that leaves too little for everybody else.

Money in the US is infinite. You can make as much as you want. Nobody is stopping you. Until the day comes where I go to a bank for a loan, and they tell me I can't have one because the rich have all the money, or I can't get a raise because my boss tells me the same, then the wealth really doesn't exist.

If we took half of all the money away from rich people, it doesn't benefit you one iota. All it does is give government more money to spend.

So for most of us wages have been stagnant for years while the rich keep getting richer. Yeah you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Sounds like some rich guy duped you again.

Just pointing out the obvious. You wealth envy people believe that if we had less rich people, it would benefit you somehow. If anything, it would be just the opposite.

Money always flows upwards and always will. If you want to stop the rich, then quit giving them your money! Get rid of that computer you are on now. That was manufactured by a multi-billion dollar industry. Since you will have no computer, you won't need the internet either. Cable and internet is another multi-billion dollar industry. And don't forget to turn in or destroy your cell phone. I don't have to tell you what the cell phone industry is worth.

Every day of every week, every month and every year, we willingly send our money to the top. You will buy gasoline sometime soon. You will stop at McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. You might buy a new video game system, new video game, a new program or application. Maybe a new car. But one way or another, you are going to willingly send your money to those millionaires and billionaires. You can't stop yourself unless you are Amish.

Okay, now that we've established the rich got that way by making our lives more entertaining, enjoyable or convenient, is it fair to say now that we've giving them all our money for their services, they should give it back with nothing in return?

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

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.

So why does none of that happen in Somalia? Because YOU are not the only factor In how much money your going to make in life.

 

[U2Edge]

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

Edge, why don't you try it out, pay 70% of your income in federal taxes (not counting state, local and sales tax) and let us know how it works out for you?

Aren't the politicians suggesting 70% for what you earn over 10 million? I doubt it would effect edge, or the vast majority of us.

Why should it affect anyone? Why don't you earn 10 million first then tell us if you think it is fair?

Because that is NOT how are democracy works. That's how a fascist dictatorship or Oligarchy works. If that's the style of government you like, move to Putin's Russia.

 

[U2Edge]

Really?

The top 1% own half the country. You don't think they

A. Can't afford it

B. Shouldn't have to pay something approaching equivalency for that?

To me, comparing them to others -- saying they are the top 1% or that they own half the country-- is totally beside the point. The point is they earned that money and taking even half of it away just like that is outrageous. Why would you continue to live or work somewhere that robs you of over half your lawful earnings like that? NO WONDER PEOPLE CHEAT ON THEIR TAXES!
I'll ask you something, Lesh. What gives us the right to take that much money away from another citizen? To me, saying "he can afford it," is a nonanswer. It seems to me that destroys any incentive to either (1) work hard to build more success or (2) to live here.

Do you not understand that "the money" has to come from somewhere???

Should it come from people who can barely pay their minimum bills...or from those who the system has made wealthy beyond any reasonable way to spend that wealth?

Maybe the government shouldn't spend more money than it can fairly tax its citizens? I am still not able to buy in to this Robin Hood theory. It's too communist for my taste. We are a capitalist society ingrained with the idea that we have the potential to become wealthy through our own hard work and initiative. The government should not have the right to take half of it or more just because they are successful. I have never completely understood why we give so much of our money to the federal government so that it can turn around and dole it back to the states. I can understand the military being taxed that way and federal law enforcement like the FBI and the Intelligence services, but not a lot else.

.

You do know that wealth inequality is because you lazy ass fuckers dont get off your welfare asses and get a job. I used to be a minimum wage puke when I was 18 but got skills given to me by God and was able to go to Saudi Arabia and make a small fortune all tax free. Or you can keep being a victim of liberalism and stay poor and yes my income will increase while your stays the same.

What a total bunch of bullshit. Most people that live at or below the poverty level work, and work damn harder than I do, or you do for that matter. Sure, education is the ticket out. My six kids demonstrate that in spades. But a quality education is expensive. People living at the poverty level sometimes devote forty percent or more of their income to support one college student, and that is WITH financial aid and loans. Our system is fubared. Every year we LOSE more great minds than can ever be delivered by the "one percent". Hell, Donald Trump is a shining example of why elitism is a failure. I mean they say he avoids rainstorms because of his hair but I think it is because he is as dumb as a turkey and would drown in one.

Education, in a real college that is teaching how to make a living may be the answer, or getting skills through the trades can be for others. But liberal arts, doesnt get you much except a barista at Starbucks...At least SB is now contributing to that education...

Education is not entirely about getting a job. I detest the fact that our government has been pushing that idea for the past decade.

Do you think people should get their social security checks? Medicare insurance? Medicaid? What about paying down the interest on the national debt and Veterans Benefits. Then yes there is the Military. That right there is over 80% of government spending.

What’s Missing in the War on Poverty? - Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity

This year the federal, state, and local governments will spend close to a combined $1 trillion to fund more than 100 separate anti-poverty programs. In fact, since Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty” in 1965, government efforts to fight poverty have cost more than $23 trillion.

Why do the liberal pricks always say Social Security is going bankrupt, but not welfare. Why should I have to pay for another persons medical bills when I have my own and families to take care of. Because the liberals know that you fuckers dont work and will vote for the very people who keep your sorry ass poor.. Stop welfare put the 1 trillion dollars a year for welfare into the budget and in 15 years no more debt, more people would be working, thus increasing taxes and no more poverty....

Your idea of how many people who are "Not working" is a myth as well as how much is spent on welfare for people that are physically able to work. The economy is at full employment right now and is experiencing labor shortages primarily because the largest generation in history has reached retirement age and is leaving the workforce in droves. This is why the United States needs to be increasing immigration at a time when Trump is trying to crack down on it.

 

[U2Edge]

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

National tax policy is about generating the largest amount of revenue for the federal government without hurting economic growth. Its not about some subjective idea of what is fair for the top income earners to pay in terms of taxes. Its about what is best for the country, not the billionaire individual.