Why Not Raise the Top Tax Bracket to 90%?

[Iriemon]

I can't wait for the "we had a 90% rate before" argument... all the while failing to remember the deduction rules were MUCH different at that time, wherein the effective rate was still less than 50% (and if I remember correctly, just about where they are now)

The effective rate is around 20% or slightly less now, overall.

The effective rate was of course less than the top marginal rate, always is, but the marginal tax rate on dollars earned over a couple million (in todays dollars) was closer to the top rate.

 

[Iriemon]

Might as well make it 100%.

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

That would take away any incentive to work or produce.

 

[Iriemon]

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

Who is "they"? I've written a number of posts arguing the Govt should cut spending, and specifically spelled out $1/2 trillion in cuts I would make.

 

[sealybobo]

Because they earned their money and they should keep it. The same way you dont want to pay 90%

Can we compromise?

Clearly the way both parties spend, our government needs additional money.

Now you can't approve of borrowing from China and putting it on the debt, can you?

So where are we going to come up with the money to pay off what we have already spent?

You think your taxes should be raised? That'll dramatically affect your prosperity. In my opinion, you and I already get taxed too much.

So why not roll back the tax cuts back to what they were when Reagan was in office? Rich people were still rich back then. And the economy was good so that middle class people could become rich.

Are you in favor of Oligarchy?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or religious hegemony.

We're heading that way buddy with your free market capitalism no regulations blabla

huh

That's what I thought.

 

[Xenophon]

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

Who is "they"? I've written a number of posts arguing the Govt should cut spending, and specifically spelled out $1/2 trillion in cuts I would make.

You post so much nobody could read it all.

'They' are people in government.

Is that you?

 

[Iriemon]

Might as well make it 100%.

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

Who is "they"? I've written a number of posts arguing the Govt should cut spending, and specifically spelled out $1/2 trillion in cuts I would make.

You post so much nobody could read it all.

'They' are people in government.

Is that you?

No, but I could have been part of "they" depending upon what you meant.

I doubt you'll hear much about cutting spending in a situation were the goal is to increase spending to provide stimulus to the economy.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because they earned their money and they should keep it. The same way you dont want to pay 90%

Can we compromise?

Clearly the way both parties spend, our government needs additional money.

Now you can't approve of borrowing from China and putting it on the debt, can you?

So where are we going to come up with the money to pay off what we have already spent?

You think your taxes should be raised? That'll dramatically affect your prosperity. In my opinion, you and I already get taxed too much.

So why not roll back the tax cuts back to what they were when Reagan was in office? Rich people were still rich back then. And the economy was good so that middle class people could become rich.

Are you in favor of Oligarchy?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or religious hegemony.

We're heading that way buddy with your free market capitalism no regulations blabla

You are right. We are headed toware oligarchy, but you have the group wrong. I'd look at the people that always think they are smarter than everyone else and who are very comfortable telling everyone else what to do for their own good. You could look at people like Tipper "don't play those vulger language CDs" Gore, (her husband Al "don't have a carbon footprint like me" Gore, Hilary "it takes a village (to tell you how to raise your child)" Clinton, Barack "I'm the smartest guy in the room (just ask the press)" Obama.

People like that are very happy to be your oligarchy. I'm not sure the right (except for the turbo religious nuts like Huckabee et al.) have the desire to tell you in detail what to do for your own good.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I can't wait for the "we had a 90% rate before" argument... all the while failing to remember the deduction rules were MUCH different at that time, wherein the effective rate was still less than 50% (and if I remember correctly, just about where they are now)

The effective rate is around 20% or slightly less now, overall.

The effective rate was of course less than the top marginal rate, always is, but the marginal tax rate on dollars earned over a couple million (in todays dollars) was closer to the top rate.

I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.

Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.

 

[sealybobo]

Because they earned their money and they should keep it. The same way you dont want to pay 90%

Can we compromise?

Clearly the way both parties spend, our government needs additional money.

Now you can't approve of borrowing from China and putting it on the debt, can you?

So where are we going to come up with the money to pay off what we have already spent?

You think your taxes should be raised? That'll dramatically affect your prosperity. In my opinion, you and I already get taxed too much.

So why not roll back the tax cuts back to what they were when Reagan was in office? Rich people were still rich back then. And the economy was good so that middle class people could become rich.

Are you in favor of Oligarchy?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or religious hegemony.

We're heading that way buddy with your free market capitalism no regulations blabla

You are right. We are headed toware oligarchy, but you have the group wrong. I'd look at the people that always think they are smarter than everyone else and who are very comfortable telling everyone else what to do for their own good. You could look at people like Tipper "don't play those vulger language CDs" Gore, (her husband Al "don't have a carbon footprint like me" Gore, Hilary "it takes a village (to tell you how to raise your child)" Clinton, Barack "I'm the smartest guy in the room (just ask the press)" Obama.

People like that are very happy to be your oligarchy. I'm not sure the right (except for the turbo religious nuts like Huckabee et al.) have the desire to tell you in detail what to do for your own good.

No, we're socialists, remember? Spread the wealth, remember? Get your story straight.

There is no place for people like that in your party. That is why they are leaving. Admit it.

And I've heard this all before. I remember this bullshit in the 90's. Gore wants to ban video games, sensor radio and cable and ban guns. And they want to tax cigs.

Trust me, after 8 years of GOP rule, I find those comments even funnier than I did in the 90's.

Who knew you guys would abuse your power this much. Now for you to come back with such weak Tipper Gore bullshit.

After Bush took away Habius Corpus and the new Conservatives on the Supreme Court not following Stari Decisis and trying to ban abortions and banning stem cell.

We followed your nonsense for long enough. Now you're going to pull out the Tipper argument?

Want to end that kind of bullshit from liberals? Stop painting us as the immoral party. Yes, that was bullshit what she tried to do. But what do you expect when your party paints them as godless and bad for families and bad for America. They had to appeal to the religious right too.

How dare you after 8 years of Bush where the rich got richer and more people fell into poverty that you would dare suggest I'm projecting.

And remember the 90's? Clinton did a better job than Bush 1 or 2. The two Bush bookends. Both of them had horrible recessions. Hell, 3 between them in the 3 terms they served.

 

[Iriemon]

I can't wait for the "we had a 90% rate before" argument... all the while failing to remember the deduction rules were MUCH different at that time, wherein the effective rate was still less than 50% (and if I remember correctly, just about where they are now)

The effective rate is around 20% or slightly less now, overall.

The effective rate was of course less than the top marginal rate, always is, but the marginal tax rate on dollars earned over a couple million (in todays dollars) was closer to the top rate.

I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.

Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.

That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Might as well make it 100%.

BTW, has anyone else noticed they don't even pay lip service anymore to cutting spending?

That would take away any incentive to work or produce.

But as you get closer and closer to 0 income, it has no effect on your incetive to produce?

To the contrary, as Chief Justice Marshall correctly observer in McCoulloch v. Maryland, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." (in explaining why the states do not have the power to tax installations of the federal government.) If you tax something at a high enough rate, you will indeed destroy it.

The reverse is true also, if you create an incentive, no matter how meager, you will get more of something. Even though it may suck, it will always look good to somebody.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The effective rate is around 20% or slightly less now, overall.

The effective rate was of course less than the top marginal rate, always is, but the marginal tax rate on dollars earned over a couple million (in todays dollars) was closer to the top rate.

I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.

Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.

That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.

As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.

Given that, how much is their "fair share?"

 

[sealybobo]

I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.

Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.

That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.

As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.

Given that, how much is their "fair share?"

Are you including all the taxes we pay in school taxes, gas taxes, road taxes, sales taxes?

I bet we pay more TAXES than they do.

And I bet their income tax numbers are misleading. They probably get it all back thru loopholes you don't even know about unless you work for Lehman Brothers.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Can we compromise?

Clearly the way both parties spend, our government needs additional money.

Now you can't approve of borrowing from China and putting it on the debt, can you?

So where are we going to come up with the money to pay off what we have already spent?

You think your taxes should be raised? That'll dramatically affect your prosperity. In my opinion, you and I already get taxed too much.

So why not roll back the tax cuts back to what they were when Reagan was in office? Rich people were still rich back then. And the economy was good so that middle class people could become rich.

Are you in favor of Oligarchy?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or religious hegemony.

We're heading that way buddy with your free market capitalism no regulations blabla

You are right. We are headed toware oligarchy, but you have the group wrong. I'd look at the people that always think they are smarter than everyone else and who are very comfortable telling everyone else what to do for their own good. You could look at people like Tipper "don't play those vulger language CDs" Gore, (her husband Al "don't have a carbon footprint like me" Gore, Hilary "it takes a village (to tell you how to raise your child)" Clinton, Barack "I'm the smartest guy in the room (just ask the press)" Obama.

People like that are very happy to be your oligarchy. I'm not sure the right (except for the turbo religious nuts like Huckabee et al.) have the desire to tell you in detail what to do for your own good.

No, we're socialists, remember? Spread the wealth, remember? Get your story straight.

There is no place for people like that in your party. That is why they are leaving. Admit it.

And I've heard this all before. I remember this bullshit in the 90's. Gore wants to ban video games, sensor radio and cable and ban guns. And they want to tax cigs.

Trust me, after 8 years of GOP rule, I find those comments even funnier than I did in the 90's.

Who knew you guys would abuse your power this much. Now for you to come back with such weak Tipper Gore bullshit.

After Bush took away Habius Corpus and the new Conservatives on the Supreme Court not following Stari Decisis and trying to ban abortions and banning stem cell.

We followed your nonsense for long enough. Now you're going to pull out the Tipper argument?

Want to end that kind of bullshit from liberals? Stop painting us as the immoral party. Yes, that was bullshit what she tried to do. But what do you expect when your party paints them as godless and bad for families and bad for America. They had to appeal to the religious right too.

How dare you after 8 years of Bush where the rich got richer and more people fell into poverty that you would dare suggest I'm projecting.

And remember the 90's? Clinton did a better job than Bush 1 or 2. The two Bush bookends. Both of them had horrible recessions. Hell, 3 between them in the 3 terms they served.

I'll admit I'm a man without a party. I quit the Rep party when I realized I'd been misinformed and most republicans were not like Reagan, they were like Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Spector et al. Now, if the Republicans decide to purge themselves of the riff-raff like Spector, I might consider coming back. Although I won't come back if it is just a sheild for the social conservative wing of the party. I have no interest in pushing a bunch of anti-abortion et al. agenda items. If that is a de-emphasized part of the agenda, that's ok, but it can't be the focus.

You're STATISTS. It doesn't really matter what your economic focus is. You want centralized power of the state and de-emphasized autonomy of the individual.

You can't bait me into defending either Bush, I didn't like either one of them. I didn't like Bush II from the beginning in 2000 before he got the nomination. That I voted for him twice I view as a failure on the Dems part for not putting up somebody better. Afterall, you only get to pick between the two main guys for who is going to win.

I did enthusiastically support Bush I in 1988. However, after I found out that he wasn't going to support the Reagan revolution, my vote in 1992, I put like this, "Better a third-class fireman than a First Class Arsonist." His son wasn't even a third-class fireman, he was probably a half-assed firebug.

I don't give a shit about your immorality. I do care about your party's constant, incessant corruption. The Repubs have their own corruption problems, but they really pale by comparison.

The stuff you said about the court is just plain wrong. You are misinformed.

 

[Iriemon]

I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.

Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.

That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.

As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.

Given that, how much is their "fair share?"

On the other hand, the top 1% only pay about 4% of payroll taxes like medicare and SS.

Fair if you are asking my opinion would be some percentage higher than the percentage of total income they earned. How much higher depends on a number of factors (like how much the Govt is in debt) but somewhere around 10-20 points would be my estimation.

 

[Iriemon]

You are right. We are headed toware oligarchy, but you have the group wrong. I'd look at the people that always think they are smarter than everyone else and who are very comfortable telling everyone else what to do for their own good. You could look at people like Tipper "don't play those vulger language CDs" Gore, (her husband Al "don't have a carbon footprint like me" Gore, Hilary "it takes a village (to tell you how to raise your child)" Clinton, Barack "I'm the smartest guy in the room (just ask the press)" Obama.

People like that are very happy to be your oligarchy. I'm not sure the right (except for the turbo religious nuts like Huckabee et al.) have the desire to tell you in detail what to do for your own good.

You're STATISTS. ...

What exactly is a "statist". I heard Mark Levine use that word, and now I see it being parrotted here, but I'm not sure what it means. Someone who thinks there should be a government?

 

[Skull Pilot]

why not have the 50% of people who pay nothing pay something?

 

[Iriemon]

why not have the 50% of people who pay nothing pay something?

Do you mean working people? If so 50% don't pay nothing. Everyone who works pays at least an effective 15% payroll tax (including the employer's match)

 

[Skull Pilot]

why not have the 50% of people who pay nothing pay something?

Do you mean working people? If so 50% don't pay nothing. Everyone who works pays at least an effective 15% payroll tax (including the employer's match)

the post is about raising income taxes not payroll taxes and yes 50% pf people pay no income taxes. And an employer contribution to Social es in just that, the employers tax not the employee's tax.

 

[sealybobo]

You are right. We are headed toware oligarchy, but you have the group wrong. I'd look at the people that always think they are smarter than everyone else and who are very comfortable telling everyone else what to do for their own good. You could look at people like Tipper "don't play those vulger language CDs" Gore, (her husband Al "don't have a carbon footprint like me" Gore, Hilary "it takes a village (to tell you how to raise your child)" Clinton, Barack "I'm the smartest guy in the room (just ask the press)" Obama.

People like that are very happy to be your oligarchy. I'm not sure the right (except for the turbo religious nuts like Huckabee et al.) have the desire to tell you in detail what to do for your own good.

No, we're socialists, remember? Spread the wealth, remember? Get your story straight.

There is no place for people like that in your party. That is why they are leaving. Admit it.

And I've heard this all before. I remember this bullshit in the 90's. Gore wants to ban video games, sensor radio and cable and ban guns. And they want to tax cigs.

Trust me, after 8 years of GOP rule, I find those comments even funnier than I did in the 90's.

Who knew you guys would abuse your power this much. Now for you to come back with such weak Tipper Gore bullshit.

After Bush took away Habius Corpus and the new Conservatives on the Supreme Court not following Stari Decisis and trying to ban abortions and banning stem cell.

We followed your nonsense for long enough. Now you're going to pull out the Tipper argument?

Want to end that kind of bullshit from liberals? Stop painting us as the immoral party. Yes, that was bullshit what she tried to do. But what do you expect when your party paints them as godless and bad for families and bad for America. They had to appeal to the religious right too.

How dare you after 8 years of Bush where the rich got richer and more people fell into poverty that you would dare suggest I'm projecting.

And remember the 90's? Clinton did a better job than Bush 1 or 2. The two Bush bookends. Both of them had horrible recessions. Hell, 3 between them in the 3 terms they served.

I'll admit I'm a man without a party. I quit the Rep party when I realized I'd been misinformed and most republicans were not like Reagan, they were like Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Spector et al. Now, if the Republicans decide to purge themselves of the riff-raff like Spector, I might consider coming back. Although I won't come back if it is just a sheild for the social conservative wing of the party. I have no interest in pushing a bunch of anti-abortion et al. agenda items. If that is a de-emphasized part of the agenda, that's ok, but it can't be the focus.

You're STATISTS. It doesn't really matter what your economic focus is. You want centralized power of the state and de-emphasized autonomy of the individual.

You can't bait me into defending either Bush, I didn't like either one of them. I didn't like Bush II from the beginning in 2000 before he got the nomination. That I voted for him twice I view as a failure on the Dems part for not putting up somebody better. Afterall, you only get to pick between the two main guys for who is going to win.

I did enthusiastically support Bush I in 1988. However, after I found out that he wasn't going to support the Reagan revolution, my vote in 1992, I put like this, "Better a third-class fireman than a First Class Arsonist." His son wasn't even a third-class fireman, he was probably a half-assed firebug.

I don't give a shit about your immorality. I do care about your party's constant, incessant corruption. The Repubs have their own corruption problems, but they really pale by comparison.

The stuff you said about the court is just plain wrong. You are misinformed.

1. I want you to know that I don't love the DEMS as much as I make it seem. I came to the same realization you did about the GOP in the 90's and so I 100% believe the Dems are the better party for the middle class.

2. I loved Reagan and supported Bush 1 too, but Bush 1 sucked so bad that I gave slick willy a chance, and he did a decent job. And the GOP of the 90's turned me off big time. I was telling people like you that they were full of shit 15 years ago. Glad you finally saw it.

3. I don't give a fuck about people's morality either. Why I agree with libertarians a lot. I just don't like every man for himself. I'm too liberal/progressive/smart to fall for that free market/no regulations bullshit.

4. I disagree when you say this: You want centralized power of the state and de-emphasized autonomy of the individual.
I watched a show on Adams/Jefferson and I see both sides. Its not black and white. The Federal Government has the ultimate say if one state is being unconstitutional, like with slavery, or if they are polluting. Right? But I understand states rights. Even our founders debated this back and forth.

5. And like you have a boner over Reagan, I have a boner over Carter/Clinton/Obama. Not gods, but every one of them was better than either Bush.

What makes your love for Reagan different than mine for the GOP? There all the same right? You know Reagan was a cock sucker just like all the rest of them, right?

Oh????? Does someone have a crush on Reagan? Are you going to sound as pro Reagan as I am Obama?

Get ready for an argument. And I better see Editec and Willow and everyone else call you a partisan hack.