81% agree, raise taxes

[Sallow]

That we should raise taxes on the wealthy in our time of need. So who are all these people in congress who are against it and why?

I say tighten up deductions, work on elimination of abuse, get overhead down, get rid of programs that don't work, bring some of our troops home, and get rid of the last TAX cut for any income over 25,000.
Then put a 2% add on for all income over 250,000.
Take SS tax all the way up to 1/2 million for workers and base SS on need. every dollar in income over 50,000 cost you .25 cents off your monthly SS payment.

Republicans come on now, your always saying you was sent to washington to do what the people wanted, well 81% want you to raise taxes esp on those at the top.

Hey genius... you could take ALL of their money and it wouldn't come close to paying off our debts.

Please stop reading failed Marxist claptrap.

We'll always have debt. Clinton and the Republicans cut spending AND raised taxes, and at least that resulted in a balanced budget. And it happened in record time, following massive debt left by Bush41 who inherited it from Reagan.

President George HW Bush was a pragmatist and began addressing the "debt problem" early on. It probably cost him the Presidency but it was the right thing to do for the country.

 

[MaggieMae]

81% say raise taxes on the rich

This is why democracies always fail. (And rest assured, the American Republic is almost gone.)

Democracies always fail? Got a historical link for that? The sky is not falling. This democracy will not fail. (Ooops, this democratic REPUBLIC will not fail.) If you're so convinced it will, then move, if you can find another country that offers all that this one does, you ungrateful fool.

 

[boedicca]

Under Eisenhower, a republican, the richest were taxed at 91%. That was when we got our interstate highway system.

This is so historically and economically ignorant.

In 1956, the top marginal tax rate of 91% for a married couple filing jointly only applied to incomes over $200,000, which is nearly $3.4 MILLION today.

And note the higher rates back then at lower levels of income (the 30% rate applies to the equivalent of approx. $100K today)

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2011


The real lesson to draw from past rates is that more of the income tax burden was born by people at lower levels of income than today. With lower rates for wealthier taxpayers, they actually pay a higher share of the income tax burden.

In 2010, the top 10% of taxpayers paid nearly 70% of individual income taxes.

Contrast that with 50% in 1977 (the earliest I could find, with a top tax rate of 70% on incomes over $737K in today's dollars)

Preliminary Estimates of Effective Tax Rates

I can't find equivalent data for 1956, but given that the share of income tax collection as a % of GDP 17.4% (very close to the 18-19% average trend), the high taxes on The Rich didn't generate additional tax receipts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1324]Federal Income Taxes, as a Share of GDP, Drop to Lowest Level Since 1942, According to Final Budget Data, 10/21/03

Did you even read that link? You are, in fact, making the case that the tax cuts did nothing to keep the economy afloat.

No I'm not.

The link shows that RAISING TAX RATES THROUGH THE ROOF do not result in more tax receipts.

In 2003, we were still in a recession. Tax receipts then rose, before we had the financial meltdown.

 

[MaggieMae]

then how do you explain decades of America having tax rates on the top well over 50 %

How do you explain the massive period of Economic Growth Following both when JFK and then When Reagan cut the top rates?

Or do you just try and ignore that inconvenient fact?

We still had a huge industrial complex. We manufactured stuff here, sold it here, pocketed the profits here, built up our business HERE as a result of those profits. And we weren't afraid to take risks, like government investment in projects like space travel which has ultimately resulted in tens of thousands of multi-million dollar private businesses, not to mention all the small businesses supporting the larger ones. Need I go on?

 

[MaggieMae]

That we should raise taxes on the wealthy in our time of need. So who are all these people in congress who are against it and why?

I say tighten up deductions, work on elimination of abuse, get overhead down, get rid of programs that don't work, bring some of our troops home, and get rid of the last TAX cut for any income over 25,000.
Then put a 2% add on for all income over 250,000.
Take SS tax all the way up to 1/2 million for workers and base SS on need. every dollar in income over 50,000 cost you .25 cents off your monthly SS payment.

Republicans come on now, your always saying you was sent to washington to do what the people wanted, well 81% want you to raise taxes esp on those at the top.

Why don't we get it over with and just confiscate all their assets? I'm sure that would be just a good way to get started right Libs?.

Then when all that wealth has been stolen and spent by the government because that's what government loves to do....spend.Then where do we go to get the revenue to make the Libs happy.

Do we go after the ones making $100,000.00 a year?
$50,000.00 a year....

Look if you feel that the government is not getting enough tax money I'm sure when you file your return in the next few weeks you can make arrangements to hand over more of your income to the government....Do that and get back to me ok?

Confiscate the assets of the wealthy? How would we know where most of the "assets" are? Swiss banks? The Caymen Islands? Dummy corporations that claim losses year after year? Do you even have a clue how the rich manage to STAY rich?????

 

[MaggieMae]

What were the tax rates on the top bracket in their days?

dont just look at the tax rates, moron, also look at what was deductible then

Are you saying there were more or less? Since you brought it up, why don't you look it up, and then make your point.

 

[MaggieMae]

TMN also doesn't grok the concept of INFLATION and that the high rates of yesteryear applied to incredibly high levels of income in today's dollars.

i.e., in 1917, the top rate of 67% applied to incomes over $2M, which is $34.4M in 2011 dollars. Not very many people earned that much money back then.

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

 

[DiveCon]

What were the tax rates on the top bracket in their days?

dont just look at the tax rates, moron, also look at what was deductible then

Are you saying there were more or less? Since you brought it up, why don't you look it up, and then make your point.

WAY more deductions then

 

[boedicca]

TMN also doesn't grok the concept of INFLATION and that the high rates of yesteryear applied to incredibly high levels of income in today's dollars.

i.e., in 1917, the top rate of 67% applied to incomes over $2M, which is $34.4M in 2011 dollars. Not very many people earned that much money back then.

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

$34.4M is a much much higher number than the Obama definition of millionaires who make $200K per year,.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually, Don't tell me what I pretend to not see. Fact is, The Left are suicidal, mentally ill nutcases who are a very big part of the reason that this Nation is now going Bankrupt. Face it, Your Socialist experiment is a 100% failure. You tried and it is clear that you have failed. You failed with the Soviet Union, you have failed in South America, You have failed in Europe and now you have failed in The United States of America. Your Unions and socialist programs have bled this Country dry. All your fantasies of $150,000 a year pensions payments have been smashed. The lies have been exposed.

You were supposed to wake up after The Auto Workers Union couldn't pay you what they promised you. However, You will never wake up because like I said, You Socialists are suicidal and destroyers of Nations. Walker is now doing what should have been done long ago. And there you have it, another example of the complete breakdown of you peoples mentally ill ideology. ~BH




this is great writing.. you've nailed it bh...

Oh yeah, dumb and dumber ^5 each other... "Destroyers of Nations" !!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Uh. They did. But first we lost a bunch of jobs due to the dotcom crash and 9/11, you silly sack of stupid.


Non-farm employment by month 1999-present:

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

People were much better able to go out and find other jobs immediately following the dotcom bust, verified by an increase already from 1999 to 2000 in your link.

 

[DiveCon]

TMN also doesn't grok the concept of INFLATION and that the high rates of yesteryear applied to incredibly high levels of income in today's dollars.

i.e., in 1917, the top rate of 67% applied to incomes over $2M, which is $34.4M in 2011 dollars. Not very many people earned that much money back then.

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

which means the tax rates should be at that much high levels to be equal

 

[MaggieMae]

A link might give your claims a foundation. ~BH

Again:
Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters

They know you were telling the truth, they just cant refute your facts so they insult instead

All in a day's work. Sigh...

 

[MaggieMae]

then how do you explain decades of America having tax rates on the top well over 50 %

Liberal Democrats who hate businesses that hire people. To put it plain and simple.

It isn't the Democrats who have been sitting on $3 trillion fucking dollars while greedy businesses refused to start rehiring until Republicans got voted back in.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is a faction on the right that react like this when they cant refute the facts presented.

The factds are that we have created tons of jobs and had great economies with much higher tax rates on the wealthy.

If you note when the economy is bad they say "you cant raise taxes now"


When the econony is good they say "you cant raise taxes now".


They only want them cut and cut and cut.

The are the fiscally irresponsible party.

They NEVER want the wealthy to pay their fair share no matter how much the wealthy rape the economy

There's always a few loons hanging around. You should be used to it by now, and you actually tolerate it better than I do.

 

[Old Rocks]

That we should raise taxes on the wealthy in our time of need. So who are all these people in congress who are against it and why?

I say tighten up deductions, work on elimination of abuse, get overhead down, get rid of programs that don't work, bring some of our troops home, and get rid of the last TAX cut for any income over 25,000.
Then put a 2% add on for all income over 250,000.
Take SS tax all the way up to 1/2 million for workers and base SS on need. every dollar in income over 50,000 cost you .25 cents off your monthly SS payment.

Republicans come on now, your always saying you was sent to washington to do what the people wanted, well 81% want you to raise taxes esp on those at the top.

Now I make a lot over $50,000, and draw full SS. So this would cost me. But I would vote for it in a heartbeat.

 

[MaggieMae]

A link might give your claims a foundation. ~BH

Again:
Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters

Yeah, That was pointed out pages ago. You might want to read all the posts before making an idiot out of yourself. But here I'll help you out a little Maggie in case you missed it, which is a common occurence with you.

The link I asked for was concerning the 81% claim, not what tax bracket it was during Eisenhower. Why the hell do I have to explain it to you anyway? Go back and read and find out who asked for the link that you just provided. Get the right poster next time instead pretending that you know what the hell you're doing, because you don't as usual. ~BH

I don't intend to read all posts before I say anything, so good luck trying out your Little Nikita bullshit on me. Plus, this thread is so ongoing, it's more of a chat so it's impossible to stay ahead of it, genius.

So very sorry I misunderstood your question. I'll bet you now can feel real smug since you finally won one.

 

[DiveCon]

then how do you explain decades of America having tax rates on the top well over 50 %

Liberal Democrats who hate businesses that hire people. To put it plain and simple.

It isn't the Democrats who have been sitting on $3 trillion fucking dollars while greedy businesses refused to start rehiring until Republicans got voted back in.

ah, its a CONSPIRACY

 

[BolshevikHunter]

TMN also doesn't grok the concept of INFLATION and that the high rates of yesteryear applied to incredibly high levels of income in today's dollars.

i.e., in 1917, the top rate of 67% applied to incomes over $2M, which is $34.4M in 2011 dollars. Not very many people earned that much money back then.

And a gallon of milk didn't cost as much as today. Everything's relative.

Actually mAGGIE, If you bring us on the subject of Milk, The Unions destroyed that industry as well or we would still be paying much lower amounts for it! Why do I know? Because my Uncle worked for Foster farms back in the 1970's. He became a member and he watched what it did to the entire enterprise. He ended up quitting and went into business for himself as a General contractor.

Yeah it's true. I remember many days working together while listening to the stories of how those bloodsuckers turned a great successful business into a never ending nightmare of appeasement that always fell back on the shoulders of the consumer. Course, I don't for one second hold my breath in order to believe that a mentally deranged Socialist like yourself can even recognize that 1 + 1 = 2. To people like you, 1 + 1 = 3, No matter how many times reality is in front of your faces. ~BH

 

[Cuyo]

Liberal Democrats who hate businesses that hire people. To put it plain and simple.

It isn't the Democrats who have been sitting on $3 trillion fucking dollars while greedy businesses refused to start rehiring until Republicans got voted back in.

ah, its a CONSPIRACY

Isn't it always?