When Have You Made Enough Money?

[NYcarbineer]

[That is Exactly what RW is stating. WE are in power, and WE are going to DO what we want. WE don't give a SHIT of your Liberty.

RW has outed himself out again as a Marxist/Statist Fool.

So what kind of a system do YOU want? One where the majority doesn't have power? One where those who lose the elections win control of the government?

Why don't you tell us in detail what system of government would make you happy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of the bitching about too high taxes flies in the face of reality. Most people's taxes haven't gone up that much, if at all, and in fact have probably gone down.

I'm in NY, supposedly a notorious high tax state:

1. My real estate taxes, on the same property, are LOWER than they were 20 years ago.

2. The sales tax here has been about the same for ages.

3. My state taxes, if they've gone up, and I don't know if they have even, have certainly not done so to any extent I've noticed.

4. At the federal level, I pay something like 9% of my total income in federal income taxes, and that's without even counting the 1/4 of my income that is represented by non-taxable benefits and compensations from my employer. And I have no dependents, no deductions of any consequence, so I'm paying an even higher rate than most people.

Most of you complainers full of shit, to put it concisely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW,

when Republicans run on cutting your taxes, in 2010, and 2012, as they always run on...

...where are they going to cut them?

Specifically?

 

[CMike]

There is no law that says that you can't donate to the government.

If you feel that you aren't paying enough taxes, simply make a big donation to the government .

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no law that says that you can't donate to the government.

If you feel that you aren't paying enough taxes, simply make a big donation to the government .

Well that would put responsibility back on them. Funny how the Moores, Streisands, Soros, and Winfreys in the world want others to pay more in taxes, however, they take every deduction they can to pay less. They should cough up a few million a year, just because they b!tch so much.

 

[Againsheila]

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes are beginning to resent the 50% who leech, then to have the main guy stand there and say "at some point you've earned enough" just doesn't sit well. So maybe in November we can get the good guys back in the house and senate. I hope the demonrats still love that 51 vote simple majority.. payback time is coming on down the pike.

So those of us that make enough to live on are wanting payback from those that are working their butts off but can't make enough to live on...is that it?

How about we get payback from the top 10% who own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined? Oh wait, that's too logical, getting money from those who have it and made theirs off of the virtual slave labor of Americans and illegal immigrants.

 

[DiamondDave]

You want payback? Beat them at their own game... Build a better product.... Beat them in the market... you have the freedom to do so.... but that takes effort and initiative... you certainly are not owed it because someone else has it and you want it

 

[Polk]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

I love the creative myths conservatives believe about American history.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no law that says that you can't donate to the government.

If you feel that you aren't paying enough taxes, simply make a big donation to the government .

And there is no law that says you can't have a progressive tax rate that applies a higher percent to those with a greater ability to pay it.

As a matter of fact, it has been the standard for close to a hundred years. It is also the standard that is used throughout the world

 

[Polk]

Afraid not my friend...

That is the way civilized societies work. You are a member of the society whether you like it or not. The society as a whole (We the people) gets to decide who contributes what and what is done with the money collected

So the fact that the majority CAN force their will on the minority makes it moral, ethical, and right for them to do so? Hmmmm. What an interesting theory.

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

Not one thing passed by Republicans in Congress... except budget-busting tax cuts, a huge new entitlement, NCLB... and well, you get the idea.

 

[CMike]

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when
yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes


So those of us that make enough to live on are wanting payback from those that are working their butts off but can't make enough to live on...is that it?

How about we get payback from the top 10% who own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined? Oh wait, that's too logical, getting money from those who have it and made theirs off of the virtual slave labor of Americans and illegal immigrants.

how about earning your own money like a responsible adult ?

 

[boedicca]

I like this picture. Notice how high it was while we were fighting communism?

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

I love the creative myths conservatives believe about American history.

And I am amused by the economic illiteracy of people who don't understand the time value of money and where the top rates applied:

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes...this IS HOW our government is set up....though they do not rule by majority, but by super majority, because in most cases when the minority objects, it will take a super majority to break the filibuster.

I just went through 6 years of it...where not one thing passed by the Republicans in Congress, was something I agreed with...

WELCOME to the club....

yep,, that's the problem right now, the 50% of us who pay our federal taxes are beginning to resent the 50% who leech, then to have the main guy stand there and say "at some point you've earned enough" just doesn't sit well. So maybe in November we can get the good guys back in the house and senate. I hope the demonrats still love that 51 vote simple majority.. payback time is coming on down the pike.

So those of us that make enough to live on are wanting payback from those that are working their butts off but can't make enough to live on...is that it?

How about we get payback from the top 10% who own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined? Oh wait, that's too logical, getting money from those who have it and made theirs off of the virtual slave labor of Americans and illegal immigrants.

Payback? What, precisely, are they "paying you back" FOR? What have YOU ever given to someone in that top 10% that they owe you for?

 

[rightwinger]

how about earning your own money like a responsible adult ?

Millions of Americans are earning their own money and trying to raise their families on what they earn. Since the Reagan revolution restructured the tax system, the standard of living for working Americans has declined while the wealthy have acquired more wealth.

American workers are not lazy, working Americans are more productive than any other worker on earth, they are also more productive than they were 30 years ago and have less to show for it.

The wealthy are not working harder than they were 30 years ago, they have lost ground against the rest of the world and have managed to move more and more jobs overseas. For this they have been rewarded handily

 

[Alpha1]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

Kinda like claiming everone is being treated equally, this black person here is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant the same way every black person is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant....same logic.

 

[Polk]

The tax rates themselves are misleading though. Those high tax rates aren't as bad as they look because there were so many way to shelter income; however, lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration. The economy was losing some steam when Bush 43 took office and 9/11 threw us into a severe tailspin for a lot of months; but his specifically targeted tax cuts allowed us to recover nicely despite two wars in progress.

Then the housing bubble that had been building throughout the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations burst in late 2008; and we all are dealing with the results of that 19 months later and there is no end in sight.

And our current fearless leader doesn't seem to have a clue how a tax increase now will make that much much worse.

I love the creative myths conservatives believe about American history.

And I am amused by the economic illiteracy of people who don't understand the time value of money and where the top rates applied:

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

The only reason is the top rate doesn't apply to only the super-wealthy is that the Republicans have been pushing for years for the existence of fewer tax brackets. There is absolutely no reason why the system can't have more brackets than it currently does.

As for myth, I was referring to "lowering those rates during the Reagan years ushered in an unprecedented unbroken succession of years of prosperity that made it all the way into the Clinton administration". The 1980s and 1990s were an unprecedented time of prosperity... if you ignore the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, all of which had better job growth, better real GDP growth, and growth in the real income of the average family (with the exception of a few years in the late 1990s, real family income has been declining since the late 1970s).

 

[rightwinger]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

Kinda like claiming everone is being treated equally, this black person here is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant the same way every black person is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant....same logic.

The problem is that the wealthy are dining in a five star restaurant and want to pay the same as someone eating in McDonalds

 

[NYcarbineer]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

Kinda like claiming everone is being treated equally, this black person here is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant the same way every black person is not allowed in a 5 star restaurant....same logic.

Hardly. You really should have put more thought into that one.

 

[boedicca]

The total tax burden on the average family in the 1950s was half what it is today, despite the higher rates. Considering that most jobs are created by small businesses for whom the highest tax rates did not apply in the 1950s, no wonder jobs were created. The same dynamic existed starting in the 1980s when the tech revolution was taking off with a great deal of start up activity (which the current tax and financial reform bills are intent on killing).

You are too focused on taxing the rich and not understanding how the pretext of taxing The Rich always ends up moving whatever that tax is onto the broad base of the working and middle classes. Envy is a very poor criteria upon which to base economic and tax policy.

 

[Polk]

It only "moves on" to the middle class because of the increasing push by your side to place everyone in the same boat. As I said before, there is no logical reason today's number of brackets has to be taken as an absolute rule of nature. This isn't about "soaking the rich", envy, or any other red herring you want to bring into the argument. It's that we simply can't afford our national commitments by putting everything on a charge card and hoping that no one checks on our ability to pay it back.