A Serious Question for Liberals - Tax Rates

[tooAlive]

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

Thank you for being rational.

There are others that aren't. This thread was meant for them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

 

[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

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.

If the rate would be determined to be 13%.. then I would take it from a CEO, from a soldier, from a grandma, from a grocery bagger, from a stripper, from a factory work, from ANYBODY..

I will not support some subjective bullshit system where pandering takes place constantly for nothing more than power... I believe in equality in treatment.. like justice... blind to situation, person, or circumstance

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Why no, that is not what I said at all. What I said was the 20% should not have such a greater income than the 80% that they pay 70% of the taxes.

In other words, the 80% should be recieving a whole lot more for the work that they do. How do you like them apples? That is even worse to you worshipers of plutocracy.

 

[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?

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

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

Getting the hang of this yet?

Romney and his buddies paying practically no taxes still accounted for 70% of all federal taxes paid in the US.

But of course, you think they should pay more.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

If the rate would be determined to be 13%.. then I would take it from a CEO, from a soldier, from a grandma, from a grocery bagger, from a stripper, from a factory work, from ANYBODY..

I will not support some subjective bullshit system where pandering takes place constantly for nothing more than power... I believe in equality in treatment.. like justice... blind to situation, person, or circumstance

What a nice idiotic ideology. Exactly why the majority of Americans voted against the ideas presented by people like you this election.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Why no, that is not what I said at all. What I said was the 20% should not have such a greater income than the 80% that they pay 70% of the taxes.

In other words, the 80% should be recieving a whole lot more for the work that they do. How do you like them apples? That is even worse to you worshipers of plutocracy.

So you wish to restrict the freedom to earn what you can... you simply believe in wealth redistribution.. PERIOD

 

[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?

Why no, that is not what I said at all. What I said was the 20% should not have such a greater income than the 80% that they pay 70% of the taxes.

In other words, the 80% should be recieving a whole lot more for the work that they do. How do you like them apples? That is even worse to you worshipers of plutocracy.

Because it's immoral that someone that works harder than others be rewarded with so much more.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

If the rate would be determined to be 13%.. then I would take it from a CEO, from a soldier, from a grandma, from a grocery bagger, from a stripper, from a factory work, from ANYBODY..

I will not support some subjective bullshit system where pandering takes place constantly for nothing more than power... I believe in equality in treatment.. like justice... blind to situation, person, or circumstance

What a nice idiotic ideology. Exactly why the majority of Americans voted against the ideas presented by people like you this election.

Funny.. Romney had this tax plan??

Nope

And very telling that a person like you thinks that equal treatment by government under law is 'idiotic'

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

Getting the hang of this yet?

Romney and his buddies paying practically no taxes still accounted for 70% of all federal taxes paid in the US.

But of course, you think they should pay more.

Goddamned right they should!

It is time that the completely insane distribution of weath in this nation is addressed. If we have to address it through taxation, so be it.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

You are wrong.

Romney is supposed to pay 35% on taxable income.

He is also supposed to pay 15% on capital gains.

His 13.99% is not something he did "wrong"...he followed the tax code....deducted what the laws allowed him to deduct...and paid the appropriate amount of taxes required by law.

If you want to debate the topic then say this...

Romney only paid a total of 13.99% of his total annual incomein taxes. Seeing as that is possible, the tax laws must change.

Why must you make it sound like he did something illegal or unethical?

 

[tooAlive]

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.

If the rate would be determined to be 13%.. then I would take it from a CEO, from a soldier, from a grandma, from a grocery bagger, from a stripper, from a factory work, from ANYBODY..

I will not support some subjective bullshit system where pandering takes place constantly for nothing more than power... I believe in equality in treatment.. like justice... blind to situation, person, or circumstance

What a nice idiotic ideology. Exactly why the majority of Americans voted against the ideas presented by people like you this election.

Don't complain when income inequality gets even worse.

Higher taxes don't equal higher wages.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

Getting the hang of this yet?

Romney and his buddies paying practically no taxes still accounted for 70% of all federal taxes paid in the US.

But of course, you think they should pay more.

Goddamned right they should!

It is time that the completely insane distribution of weath in this nation is addressed. If we have to address it through taxation, so be it.

And there we have it.. the mantra of wealth redistribution and the destruction of freedom

 

[ilia25]

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.

What deductions?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

If I had my druthers, there'd be no direct tax on labor... NONE. ZILCH.

 

[ilia25]

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?

91% is too much. 70% is what we need.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

You are wrong.

Romney is supposed to pay 35% on taxable income.

He is also supposed to pay 15% on capital gains.

His 13.99% is not something he did "wrong"...he followed the tax code....deducted what the laws allowed him to deduct...and paid the appropriate amount of taxes required by law.

If you want to debate the topic then say this...

Romney only paid a total of 13.99% of his total annual incomein taxes. Seeing as that is possible, the tax laws must change.

Why must you make it sound like he did something illegal or unethical?

Because he's a lib, therefore inherently dishonest.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

If the rate would be determined to be 13%.. then I would take it from a CEO, from a soldier, from a grandma, from a grocery bagger, from a stripper, from a factory work, from ANYBODY..

I will not support some subjective bullshit system where pandering takes place constantly for nothing more than power... I believe in equality in treatment.. like justice... blind to situation, person, or circumstance

Exactly true.

If they want to increase tax revenue and only have it come from the wealthier Americans, then the opnly way to do it is a broad change in deductions...Cap it at a number well above and beyond the deductions lesser income Americans will EVER declare.

Cap it at 60K...That will increase tax revenue, but the law will be appled to ALL Americans.......but only some AMericans will be "lucky" enough to have it affect them.

 

[tooAlive]

Not to forget the wide gap between tax bracket and effective tax paid. Ex: Romney is supposed to pay 35% in taxes but he really only pays 13.99%.

General Electric internationally made $10,800,000,000 in 2009 and paid ZERO income tax.

Getting the hang of this yet?

Romney and his buddies paying practically no taxes still accounted for 70% of all federal taxes paid in the US.

But of course, you think they should pay more.

Goddamned right they should!

It is time that the completely insane distribution of weath in this nation is addressed. If we have to address it through taxation, so be it.

Because higher taxes automatically equal higher wages, right?

Because by making those immoral, greedy CEOs pay more taxes, they will also somehow have more money to pay workers?

How 'bout the government just takes control of everything and pays everyone the same wages. Income inequality solved.

Here's a good avatar for you.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Why no, that is not what I said at all. What I said was the 20% should not have such a greater income than the 80% that they pay 70% of the taxes.

In other words, the 80% should be recieving a whole lot more for the work that they do. How do you like them apples? That is even worse to you worshipers of plutocracy.

Because it's immoral that someone that works harder than others be rewarded with so much more.

What a totally idiotic reply. You think people that work 48 to 72 hours a week at a job that is physically and mentally demanding are lazy? Romney worked harder than these people? That is like saying a bank robber works harder than anyone else because he manages to steal a couple of million in an hours time.

People like Buffet and Gates work smarter, and more creatively, but not harder than most of the people I work with. And both those men state that the wealthy should pay at least the total percentage that the middle class does.