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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, and if any of you thought that Rabbi wouldn't negg me for that post, you can put all your doubts to rest.

About that amount do not pay federal income taxes.

The problem with what you and the Democrats are proposing is that you are going down the route of California whereby the tax burden has shifted to upper earners and the wealthiest, and the tax base has become very volatile and highly dependent on capital gains. That's unhealthy.

That's actually a good point. But we should also remember that, if necessary, the federal budget can run huge deficits for years in difficult times and still enjoy ultra-low rates. That is not true for the state and local budgets.

So added volatility might not be as destabilizing at the federal level, as it was in California.



Well, doubling that figure would go a long way toward a sustainable budget.

The deficit is $1.2 trillion

Most of it is cyclical -- i.e. it will go away once the economy recovers completely (already it came down quite a bit after it has peaked at 1.6 trillions in 2009). BTW, should we go over the fiscal cliff, it will cut the deficit by half.

Half of federal spending is SS and Medicare and Medicaid, which are primarily middle class programs. Those programs are going to become more underfunded, and the middle class's taxes will have to rise to pay for them.

No, that's the point -- they should be funded more by the rich, and less so by the middle class.

They're unsustainable, unless the middle class kicks in more money.

Or the benefits could be reduced.

 

[ilia25]

About that amount do not pay federal income taxes.

The problem with what you and the Democrats are proposing is that you are going down the route of California whereby the tax burden has shifted to upper earners and the wealthiest, and the tax base has become very volatile and highly dependent on capital gains. That's unhealthy.

That's actually a good point. But we should also remember that, if necessary, the federal budget can run huge deficits for years in difficult times and still enjoy ultra-low rates. That is not true for the state and local budgets.

So added volatility might not be as destabilizing at the federal level, as it was in California.



Well, doubling that figure would go a long way toward a sustainable budget.



Most of it is cyclical -- i.e. it will go away once the economy recovers completely (already it came down quite a bit after it has peaked at 1.6 trillions in 2009). BTW, should we go over the fiscal cliff, it will cut the deficit by half.

Half of federal spending is SS and Medicare and Medicaid, which are primarily middle class programs. Those programs are going to become more underfunded, and the middle class's taxes will have to rise to pay for them.

No, that's the point -- they should be funded more by the rich, and less so by the middle class.

They're unsustainable, unless the middle class kicks in more money.

If that is true, it makes an even more compelling case for rising taxes on the rich.

 

[oreo]

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

Do you want to PROVIDE a link to that LIE---

The top tax rate during the Clinton administration was 39.6%--and Clinton actually lowered that because he thought that he had overdone it.
The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes

The problem is you could confiscate all of Warren Buffet's money and it would run the Federal Government for 1-1/2 days. The Federal Government is spending 181 MILLION dollars per HOUR--24 hours a day 7 days a week. Our budget is over one trillion dollars per year in red ink--and the Congressional Budget office has stated repeatedly that this spending is unsustainable.

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

It's the spending that's the problem STUPID.

You voted for higher taxes--you're going to get higher taxes. Now no one really believed that the top 1% income earners in this country were going to be able to pay the tab for the other 99% did they?

 

[Staidhup]

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

And next you will be stating that the market for their products just happened without the tax cut. But then again, according to you, Bill, Larry, and Steve didn't build their business's, the government did, and without Al Gore we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[ilia25]

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

Do you want to PROVIDE a link to that LIE---

The top tax rate during the Clinton administration was 39.6%

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

 

[tooAlive]

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even if the poor weren't taxed at all, they'd still be poor. And the rich will only be a little less rich.

Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?

If the government didn't spend as much, they wouldn't need to raise taxes on anyone. The poor could probably get away with not paying any taxes at all (they already do), and the rich would have more money to raise the wages to the poor.

That to me makes a little more sense than increasing the burden on the ones solely responsible for the workers even having a job.

The poor already pay no income taxes so tell me how can they pay less?

They can pay less in other taxes (payroll tax, etc). Also, it is not just about the poor, the main victim here is the middle class. They should see their taxes lowered, or at least not increased in order to balance the budget.

So you are saying that 47% of the population are poor?

If 47% of the people who pay no income tax are poor then tell me who is the middle class?

The simple truth is that no one with an income should be exempt from income taxes.

Tell me are some people exempt from paying gasoline taxes when they buy gasoline?

Income is no different.

And tell me if the so called poor pay less in payroll taxes which fund social security and medicare who will fund the so called poor's retirement and health care?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

 

[Toro]

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

 

[tooAlive]

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

I sometimes get the impression that the term "fair share" will continue to emerge as long as the wealthy take any money home.

 

[ilia25]

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000.

 

[ilia25]

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

The rich are not the only ones paying taxes. They have to pay more, but nobody expects that they alone would finance the government.

 

[tooAlive]

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

The rich are not the only ones paying taxes. They have to pay more, but nobody expects that they alone would finance the government.

Ilia, you're missing the point. We have to cut spending.

There's no way around it. Even if we taxed everyone earning over $250k 100% of their incomes, we'd barely fund the government for even a few months.

In what language do we need to spell it out so one of you liberals will acknowledge that spending cuts need to be made?

 

[ilia25]

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

Which is the dumb party now? Actually, ignorant is more like it.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000.

So paying 0% is what in your opinion?

How is asking some to pay more than others fair?

 

[ilia25]

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

The rich are not the only ones paying taxes. They have to pay more, but nobody expects that they alone would finance the government.

Ilia, you're missing the point. We have to cut spending.

There's no way around it. Even if we taxed everyone earning over $250k 100% of their incomes, we'd barely fund the government for even a few months.

In what language do we need to spell it out so one of you liberals will acknowledge that spending cuts need to be made?

Repeating it does not make it true. Many developed countries are perfectly capable financing the government spending at 50% GDP. The US is only at 38% or something.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

No, it means we have to cut back on spending.

You say Republicans are dumb. Then you say the rich need to pay their fair share and we don't have to cut spending. Then we show you how even if the rich gave 100% of their money, the government would blow through it in merely 3 months.

And you retort by repeating that the rich simply need to pay their fair share.

The rich are not the only ones paying taxes. They have to pay more, but nobody expects that they alone would finance the government.

The rich are paying the lion's share of income taxes already while 47% of people pay no income tax.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

So what if a guy makes 100 times what you do? If he makes less you will not necessarily make more will you?

And what's your point anyway that everything over the average income should be confiscated by the fucking government?

 

[tooAlive]

The rich are not the only ones paying taxes. They have to pay more, but nobody expects that they alone would finance the government.

Ilia, you're missing the point. We have to cut spending.

There's no way around it. Even if we taxed everyone earning over $250k 100% of their incomes, we'd barely fund the government for even a few months.

In what language do we need to spell it out so one of you liberals will acknowledge that spending cuts need to be made?

Repeating it does not make it true. Many developed countries are perfectly capable financing the government spending at 50% GDP. The US is only at 38% or something.

Refusing to acknowledge the truth doesn't make it any less real.

Ignorance is bliss. The liberal motto.

 

[tooAlive]

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

So what if a guy makes 100 times what you do? If he makes less you will not necessarily make more will you?

And what's your point anyway that everything over the average income should be confiscated by the fucking government?

Some people have a distorted perception of reality. We can't fix that.