Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[Cammmpbell]

Where is the chart that shows what % of all income taxes are paid by the 1%?

I just showed you the after tax income.....what do you want to do....give it all to them? As long as this country is borrowing from foreign banks and going further into debt the 1% having one of the lowest tax rates they've had during the history of this country is a joke.

I just showed you the after tax income.....

No you didn't.
Try again?

This will be my last comment. If you're too goddam thick to look at the after tax income for the upper 1% with the others represented on the same chart before Reagan started in 1981 and then look at it during the final phase I don't want to try further to make a point. You, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc. would make a wonderful team. One other thing. This country used to pay it's way:

[/QUOTE]

 

[tooAlive]

Why would anyone want to make more money so the government can take away 70% and "spread it around?"

So after the company I built from the ground up starts generating $1,000,000 in revenue, I have to cough up $700,000 for the collective good?

Uhh.. No. I'd like to keep most of my hard earned money. Thank you very much. Then I'll "spread it around" as I see fit.

 

[Mac1958]

Why would anyone want to make more money so the government can take away 70% and "spread it around?"

So after the company I built from the ground up starts generating $1,000,000 in revenue, I have to cough up $700,000 for the collective good?

Uhh.. No. I'd like to keep most of my hard earned money. Thank you very much. Then I'll "spread it around" as I see fit.

No, not even close.

Please Google "marginal tax rates".

Then also Google "corporate tax rates" and "net corporate income", since your theoretical company generated a million in revenue.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just showed you the after tax income.....what do you want to do....give it all to them? As long as this country is borrowing from foreign banks and going further into debt the 1% having one of the lowest tax rates they've had during the history of this country is a joke.

I just showed you the after tax income.....

No you didn't.
Try again?

This will be my last comment. If you're too goddam thick to look at the after tax income for the upper 1% with the others represented on the same chart before Reagan started in 1981 and then look at it during the final phase I don't want to try further to make a point. You, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc. would make a wonderful team. One other thing. This country used to pay it's way:

look at the after tax income for the upper 1%

None of your charts showed that.

You're whining about the rich not paying enough taxes, so why don't you show what % of income taxes they paid?

Unless it's because that will undercut (refute) your silly claim.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We've been through this, haven't we?

There is a pie -- and yes, it is growing every year, but it is still a pie. And each passing year the low and middle income earners are getting ever smaller share of that year's pie.



Fair enough. But do you think that 1% are living outside their comfort zone? I think they are enjoying doing their job. I think that is why they good at it. I think they are lucky because whatever they like doing anyway, also pays well.

And I don't mind them being paid well -- but getting a compensation that amounts to hundreds times of the average salary, just does not make sense.

If you want more pie then you are free to get off your ass and get it.

I would be getting it by taking it from someone else. Your problem is that you think that we could all become CEOs if only we would get off our asses. But then who would take the low paying jobs?

Bullshit. if you earned an extra dollar today there is not anyone who earned a dollar less.
And I don't want to be a CEO. never did. I wanted to own my own business and control my own future. I did that you didn't and now you whine that you don't have enough.

You whine but do nothing about it. That is your problem.

The fact is those people either earned their money or someone in their family earned enough

They have earned it because they were lucky to be born with the right set of talents and in the environment that let them develop the right skills.

Typical of a chronic whiner to say that the successful are the recipients of dumb luck.

Funny I always found that the harder i worked and the more I did to improve myself, the luckier I got.

They are not evil, they pursue happiness as everyone else. But it doesn't entitles them to a bigger reward.

So the guy who risked everything to start a business, worked 100 hours a week for years, didn't take vacations or time off who finally is financially secure didn't deserve it?

But somehow the guy who punched a clock, called in sick, took every benefit given by his employer and never did anything to improve his financial position does deserve the reward?

We need some inequality so it motivates people. Not because some people have a moral right to claim a bigger share.

I have never heard anyone claim a right moral or otherwise to a bigger share but I do believe a man has the right to keep and do what he will with the fruits of his own labor. What I do hear is people with overblown entitlementitis whining that they have the right to take the rewards of others even though they did nothing to earn it.

 

[ilia25]

If you want more pie then you are free to get off your ass and get it.

I would be getting it by taking it from someone else. Your problem is that you think that we could all become CEOs if only we would get off our asses. But then who would take the low paying jobs?

Bullshit. if you earned an extra dollar today there is not anyone who earned a dollar less.

Yes you are -- for example, you could drive someone else out of business this way. Happens all the time.

And I don't want to be a CEO. never did. I wanted to own my own business and control my own future.

Same point -- everyone can't own his own business. Someone has to work low paying jobs. And if not for those guys, no CEO or business owner would ever "earn" his fortunes. That is why those guys deserve high living standards as well.

You whine but do nothing about it. That is your problem.

Your problem is that you don't know the world you are living in.

Funny I always found that the harder i worked and the more I did to improve myself, the luckier I got.

That is why we need some inequality, to motivate people working harder. But we have too much of it now.

So the guy who risked everything to start a business, worked 100 hours a week for years, didn't take vacations or time off who finally is financially secure didn't deserve it?

So he worked 3 times the hours that most people do. And he deserves bonus for his efforts and taking the risk-- so I'm fine with him taking home 10 times the average salary (for working 3 times more hours). But getting 300 times the average salary is obscene even for that guy.

But somehow the guy who punched a clock, called in sick, took every benefit given by his employer and never did anything to improve his financial position does deserve the reward?

Yes, because that guy work is making his employer rich.

We need some inequality so it motivates people. Not because some people have a moral right to claim a bigger share.

I have never heard anyone claim a right moral or otherwise to a bigger share but I do believe a man has the right to keep and do what he will with the fruits of his own labor.[/QUOTE]

The same labour can be rewarded much more or much less depending on circumstances that are completely independent of the labourer (like the technological advances). That part is a dumb luck, and it is completely fair to redistribute some of it to those who made that luck possible.

 

[ilia25]

Why would anyone want to make more money so the government can take away 70% and "spread it around?"

So after the company I built from the ground up starts generating $1,000,000 in revenue, I have to cough up $700,000 for the collective good?

Uhh.. No. I'd like to keep most of my hard earned money. Thank you very much. Then I'll "spread it around" as I see fit.

No, not even close.

Please Google "marginal tax rates".

Then also Google "corporate tax rates" and "net corporate income", since your theoretical company generated a million in revenue.

.

Thanks, Mac. I'm aware of how marginal tax rates work.

Since this example dates back to 1976, I assumed $1M would've qualified for the top marginal tax rate at that time. Granted, I'm not factoring in any tax credits or loopholes, but the OP didn't mention any either.

Apparently he's contempt with the top earners actually shelling out 70% of their incomes. At least that's the impression I get.

70% was marginal tax on personal incomes. Your company revenue is not subject to personal taxes -- only the part that you, as business owner, put in your own pocket. If you put 1 million of your company revenues in your own pocket, there would be nothing wrong if, say, half of it would be taxed at 70%.

 

[boedicca]

So do you think we should restore that tax bracket?

Yes, I do! Why wouldn't I?

P.S. Do you know the difference between earned income and capital gains?

We should rise the capital gain tax as well.

Why don't we stop the bullshit here and tell the truth for once.
You guys want to get as much money as you can in the hands of government as possible.

It probably killed you guys when IRA's and 401kplans came out.
How dare people put away a nice slice of their hard earned salaries.
That money belongs to government...

You don't like it send an extra 25% of your earnings this year when you file your taxes...

Do that and I will be impressed....
Until then shut the fuck up about people not paying enough taxes....

The morons also ALWAYS forget to adjust for Inflation and available tax deductions when making these comparisons. Nobody paid 70% or 91% taxes on income. Deductions and loopholes lowered the total taxes paid to much lower levels.

It's also instructive to look at the trending of federal tax receipts since WWII. Regardless of tax rates and deductions, they trend around 18% of GDP, with spending trending between 19-20%. The big exception is the Obama era, with the federal government share of GDP increasing by 25%, and a big drop in tax receipts.

Federal spending is a bigger determinant of tax receipts than are tax rates. Spending crowds out economic growth, which reduces the tax base.

 

[boedicca]

We've been through this, haven't we?

There is a pie -- and yes, it is growing every year, but it is still a pie. And each passing year the low and middle income earners are getting ever smaller share of that year's pie.



Fair enough. But do you think that 1% are living outside their comfort zone? I think they are enjoying doing their job. I think that is why they good at it. I think they are lucky because whatever they like doing anyway, also pays well.

And I don't mind them being paid well -- but getting a compensation that amounts to hundreds times of the average salary, just does not make sense.

If you want more pie then you are free to get off your ass and get it.

I would be getting it by taking it from someone else. Your problem is that you think that we could all become CEOs if only we would get off our asses. But then who would take the low paying jobs?

The fact is those people either earned their money or someone in their family earned enough

They have earned it because they were lucky to be born with the right set of talents and in the environment that let them develop the right skills.

They are not evil, they pursue happiness as everyone else. But it doesn't entitles them to a bigger reward.

We need some inequality so it motivates people. Not because some people have a moral right to claim a bigger share.

It's hardly surprising that you are a static pie kinda guy.

How economies grow via productive activity is a mystery to you.

 

[ilia25]

look at the after tax income for the upper 1%

None of your charts showed that.

Look again (the right chart, the one titled "Change in share of income after taxes"):

 

[ilia25]

It's hardly surprising that you are a static pie kinda guy.

Stop writing rubbish, I said plainly many times that the pie is not static, but growing.

 

[boedicca]

look at the after tax income for the upper 1%

None of your charts showed that.

Look again (the right chart, the one titled "Change in share of income after taxes"):

I bet the chart on the right excludes Transfer Payments, bub.

 

[ilia25]

Yes, I do! Why wouldn't I?



We should rise the capital gain tax as well.

Why don't we stop the bullshit here and tell the truth for once.
You guys want to get as much money as you can in the hands of government as possible.

It probably killed you guys when IRA's and 401kplans came out.
How dare people put away a nice slice of their hard earned salaries.
That money belongs to government...

You don't like it send an extra 25% of your earnings this year when you file your taxes...

Do that and I will be impressed....
Until then shut the fuck up about people not paying enough taxes....

The morons also ALWAYS forget to adjust for Inflation and available tax deductions when making these comparisons. Nobody paid 70% or 91% taxes on income.

No, the real morons are those who think that I ever claimed otherwise. The OP is titled "Top tax rate..", the word "top" meaning the rate of the highest bracket.

 

[The Rabbi]

look at the after tax income for the upper 1%

None of your charts showed that.

Look again (the right chart, the one titled "Change in share of income after taxes"):

I bet the chart on the right excludes Transfer Payments, bub.

It also assumes that the people at the bottom at the beginning are the same ones at the end. That is simply untrue. We are a dynamic society and people earn more as they work more.
But throw a few lines that support their cause and libs are all over it.

The truth is none of this is about taxes. It is about envy. The Dums want to stick it to people who are smarter and more successful than they are. They don't care whether it is effective tax policy or not. Obama admitted that in an interview. It is an attempt at theft and "getting even."

 

[ilia25]

look at the after tax income for the upper 1%

None of your charts showed that.

Look again (the right chart, the one titled "Change in share of income after taxes"):

I bet the chart on the right excludes Transfer Payments, bub.

The chart shows incomes of the top 1% rising much faster than the top 20%. How many transfers do you think the top 20% receive?

 

[boedicca]

Look again (the right chart, the one titled "Change in share of income after taxes"):

I bet the chart on the right excludes Transfer Payments, bub.

The chart shows incomes of the top 1% rising much faster than the top 20%. How many transfers do you think the top 20% receive?

The top 20% starts at a bit over $90K. How many of these people receive SS and Medicare? Under Obamacare, families at 4X the poverty level will include the bottom level of the top 20%.

Think about it, if you can find a functioning synapse.

 

[ilia25]

We are a dynamic society and people earn more as they work more.

What is that supposed to mean -- that an older guy is paid more for doing the same job? And that is fair because?...

 

[boedicca]

It's hardly surprising that you are a static pie kinda guy.

Stop writing rubbish, I said plainly many times that the pie is not static, but growing.

If it's growing, then why waste your time on relative share, bub?

 

[The Rabbi]

We are a dynamic society and people earn more as they work more.

What is that supposed to mean -- that an older guy is paid more for doing the same job? And that is fair because?...

Because employers pay for skills and experience that mean more productivity.
You're not very well informed, are you?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

Nobody forgot. They only had one direction to go. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that Apple and Microsoft were started in garages and not over-taxed corporate spaces.