A Serious Question for Liberals - Tax Rates

[tooAlive]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

 

[BlindBoo]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.

 

[DiamondDave]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.

But I thought the deductions, exceptions, loopholes, etc for the rich were bad?? (and they were more more lenient then)... and I thought it was bad when people find ways to skirt the rates??

So.. do those supporting this bullshit high rates want them with or without the various loopholes??

 

[tooAlive]

Back in the days of 90+% tax rates the deductions were much more lucrative as well.

But I thought the deductions, exceptions, loopholes, etc for the rich were bad?? (and they were more more lenient then)... and I thought it was bad when people find ways to skirt the rates??

So.. do those supporting this bullshit high rates want them with or without the various loopholes??

And they say Mitt Romney was a flip-flopper..

 

[Politico]

Comparing 1935 to now is ridiculous. Not even close to the same situation. Taxes obviously should not be 90%. But all the deductions people can take should be eliminated.

 

[Ravi]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Who has asked to raise tax rates that high? Not to mention that back then the deductions were much greater and the wealthy could deduct almost any "expense" that they pleased.

You really should do a little studying before you start talking out of your ass.

 

[tooAlive]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Who has asked to raise tax rates that high? Not to mention that back then the deductions were much greater and the wealthy could deduct almost any "expense" that they pleased.

You really should do a little studying before you start talking out of your ass.

There are plenty of liberals on here who have mentioned the '40's top tax rates and implied that people did just fine with them.

If you haven't, then this post wasn't aimed toward you.

 

[KissMy]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

 

[tooAlive]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

 

[Ravi]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Who has asked to raise tax rates that high? Not to mention that back then the deductions were much greater and the wealthy could deduct almost any "expense" that they pleased.

You really should do a little studying before you start talking out of your ass.

There are plenty of liberals on here who have mentioned the '40's top tax rates and implied that people did just fine with them.

If you haven't, then this post wasn't aimed toward you.

That's something different then. With all the deductions, people back then DID do fine with those rates. Because no one actually paid them.

It doesn't matter if I've said it or not, you are passing off falsehoods as truths.

Yet another reason Republicans lost the election.

 

[tooAlive]

Who has asked to raise tax rates that high? Not to mention that back then the deductions were much greater and the wealthy could deduct almost any "expense" that they pleased.

You really should do a little studying before you start talking out of your ass.

There are plenty of liberals on here who have mentioned the '40's top tax rates and implied that people did just fine with them.

If you haven't, then this post wasn't aimed toward you.

That's something different then. With all the deductions, people back then DID do fine with those rates. Because no one actually paid them.

It doesn't matter if I've said it or not, you are passing off falsehoods as truths.

Yet another reason Republicans lost the election.

That's usually what us righties reply to one of those posts.

Even mentioning the 94% tax rates is pointless because nobody actually paid them. Liberals never mention that when talking about those high rates.. Their point is usually trying to prove that there is a correlation between outrageously high taxes and economic growth.

Also, liberals tend to be against all those deductions the wealthy take advantage of.

 

[DiamondDave]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

No.. they must not.. what you advocate is indeed unequal treatment.. as explained SO many times before

We must enforce tax law... and we SHOULD strive to equalization in tax law to get every citizen on the income tax dole, instead of having close to have of all income earning adult citizens paying nothing in federal income tax...

You, and your ilk, act as if the 'evil rich' are not paying enough.. when exactly the opposite is true... we need to ensure everyone is apying the same % burden, and lessen the burden by slashing spending

 

[Old Rocks]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

So, let's really face the reality of what you have just stated. 20% are paying 70% of the federal taxes.

First, they are paying at a much lesser percentage than you or I. We pay SS and MediCare, as well as Federal. They pay a very small percentage of their tax in those categories, if any at all. That is why Governor Romney's total tax bite, by percentages, was less than that of most middle income people.

So, they are paying a smaller percentage of their total income, yet manage to pay 70% of the total federal taxes. What does that say about the total income of that 20% as compared to the total income of the 80%?

Maybe if we had some major wealth redistribution, in the form of wages, then the rest of us could boost our percentage of the Federal taxes. And boost the economy of the nation with purchases.

 

[tooAlive]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

So, let's really face the reality of what you have just stated. 20% are paying 70% of the federal taxes.

First, they are paying at a much lesser percentage than you or I. We pay SS and MediCare, as well as Federal. They pay a very small percentage of their tax in those categories, if any at all. That is why Governor Romney's total tax bite, by percentages, was less than that of most middle income people.

So, they are paying a smaller percentage of their total income, yet manage to pay 70% of the total federal taxes. What does that say about the total income of that 20% as compared to the total income of the 80%?

Maybe if we had some major wealth redistribution, in the form of wages, then the rest of us could boost our percentage of the Federal taxes. And boost the economy of the nation with purchases.

You mean,

?

 

[KissMy]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

The amount of taxes paid & the marginal tax bracket is nonsense. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. We can't compete if our product cost more because we have to pay more tax than the rich. This tax system is a huge benefit to the rich & a huge burden to the middle class. If a middle class person made widgets, they would cost more than the rich widgets because the middle class widget maker has to pay more tax per widget. This drives all the middle class out of business, into poverty & onto the government dole every time the rich wants to compete. The rich win every time thanks to the current tax scheme.

The people earning above $350k need to start actually paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class.

 

[tooAlive]

So, let's really face the reality of what you have just stated. 20% are paying 70% of the federal taxes.

First, they are paying at a much lesser percentage than you or I. We pay SS and MediCare, as well as Federal. They pay a very small percentage of their tax in those categories, if any at all. That is why Governor Romney's total tax bite, by percentages, was less than that of most middle income people.

So, they are paying a smaller percentage of their total income, yet manage to pay 70% of the total federal taxes. What does that say about the total income of that 20% as compared to the total income of the 80%?

So you think that 20% of the population should have the responsibility of 100% of the tax burden?

 

[Old Rocks]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

No.. they must not.. what you advocate is indeed unequal treatment.. as explained SO many times before

We must enforce tax law... and we SHOULD strive to equalization in tax law to get every citizen on the income tax dole, instead of having close to have of all income earning adult citizens paying nothing in federal income tax...

You, and your ilk, act as if the 'evil rich' are not paying enough.. when exactly the opposite is true... we need to ensure everyone is apying the same % burden, and lessen the burden by slashing spending

So, you would take out 13% of an enlisted man's salary, or the salary of a person making minimum wage, and state that is fair because someone that is making millions a year should only pay 13%, also.

Are they smart enough
Do they know enough
To arrange the taxes,
So the poor can pay the rich,
To keep the poor flat on their asses.

 

[tooAlive]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

The amount of taxes paid & the marginal tax bracket is nonsense. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. We can't compete if our product cost more because we have to pay more tax than the rich. This tax system is a huge benefit to the rich & a huge burden to the middle class. If a middle class person made widgets, they would cost more than the rich widgets because the middle class widget maker has to pay more tax per widget. This drives all the middle class out of business, into poverty & onto the government dole every time the rich wants to compete. The rich win every time thanks to the current tax scheme.

The people earning above $350k need to start actually paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class.

Yes, the rich pay a lower effective tax rate than you and I. Even with that "immorality," 20% of the wealthiest Americans account for 70% of all federal taxes.

Should 20% of the population pay for 80% of all taxes? 90% 100%??

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whenever there's talk about tax rates and what the "fair share" should be for the wealthy to pay, there's always a few liberals that bring out the argument of how top marginal tax rates were as high as 94% back in 1944. This is true. They were also 91% back in 1946, and and 77% in 1964.

Now, assuming people actually payed those taxes back in the day. Here's my question;

Lets say we raised the top marginal tax rate for all income above $250k to 94%, just like they were back in the day.

If we have someone already earning $250k, what is their incentive to increase their earnings $100k for a total of $350k, if they'd only get see $6,000 of it?

Essentially only getting to keep 6 cents of every dollar earned over $250k.

Again, lets say the top marginal tax rate only affected income over $500k. What incentive would a person have to earn $600k, when in reality, they'd only see $6,000 of their newly earned income?

Nobody's going to do that. Nobody's trying to do that.

 

[DiamondDave]

We do not need a high marginal rate that encourages the rich to skirt paying taxes. We must have tax enforcement on the rich. The rich must actually pay a larger rate than the poor & middle class or they are benefiting from the tax system & burdening the rest of us.

20% of the wealthiest Americans are already paying 70% of all federal taxes. What burden are you talking about?

The amount of taxes paid & the marginal tax bracket is nonsense. The loopholes & low dividend tax rate are the whole problem. When you look at total tax revenue & not just income tax, the rich are actually paying lower effective tax rate than the poor/middle class.

Investment flows to where it receives a greater return. We can't compete if our product cost more because we have to pay more tax than the rich. This tax system is a huge benefit to the rich & a huge burden to the middle class. If a middle class person made widgets, they would cost more than the rich widgets because the middle class widget maker has to pay more tax per widget. This drives all the middle class out of business, into poverty & onto the government dole every time the rich wants to compete. The rich win every time thanks to the current tax scheme.

The people earning above $350k need to start actually paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class.

Then support a no loophole, no exemption flat tax on every citizen on every dollar earned.. instead of trying to bark on this 'tax the rich more' crapola while ~47% pay nothing in federal income tax at all..

The tax system is a bigger benefit to those paying nothing in federal income tax, than it is to a rich investor who only pays capital gains

Everyone needs to pay the SAME %... you know, in a little ideal called equal treatment by government under law