A Serious Question for Liberals - Tax Rates

[WillowTree]

Currently the rich use the tax code to prey upon the rest of us stripping us of our earnings. Unless they ACTUALLY pay a higher percent than us, they are preying on us

They already do.

They pay a far higher percentage than you. In fact, 20% of them pay for 70% of all federal taxes.

You and your 80% are only accountable for 30%. So in reality, you're the ones preying on them.

The one's who pay ZERO federal income taxes are the predators.

 

[Care4all]

Currently the rich use the tax code to prey upon the rest of us stripping us of our earnings. Unless they ACTUALLY pay a higher percent than us, they are preying on us

They already do.

They pay a far higher percentage than you. In fact, 20% of them pay for 70% of all federal taxes.

You and your 80% are only accountable for 30%. So in reality, you're the ones preying on them.

The one's who pay ZERO federal income taxes are the predators.

hey willow, did ya see the republican proposal to cut SS and medicare by billions/trillion and to give even more tax breaks to the top 1% ers?

 

[tooAlive]

And how on earth are the wealthy using the tax system to steal from you? How do they strip you of your earnings?

I'd like to know how much you paid in taxes last year.

See, lowering taxes for someone doesn't mean they're stealing from you. It means they get to keep more of what they earned.

On the other hand, you wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy would indicate that you are stealing from them. So it seems you have everything backwards. That, or you're just a hypocrite.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTBt5APga7Q]Ronald Reagan: Close Unproductive Tax Loopholes - YouTube[/ame]

Should "unfair" loopholes be closed? Sure.

But a wealthy person that takes advantage of said loopholes is not preying on nor stealing from anyone. They're simple keeping more of what they earn. They don't owe that money to anyone. Not me, not you, not anyone.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Only the fucking idiot dumbocrat like BlindBoo could say something this stupid...

If you advocate for tax rates at 90%, but then advocate for "more deductions that are more lucrative", then they are not actually paying 90% and all you've accomplished is to create a shell game where complicated tax laws allow people to move and hide money all over the place.

God almight are you people stupid... It's not wonder the US is $16 trillion in debt and Barack Hussein is president.

 

[P@triot]

Since dumbocrats can't read, here is a simple chart to illustrate how the wealthy is paying a shit-load more than their "fair share". I say we take the dumbocrats up on their demand of forcing the wealthy to pay their "fair share" and drastically reduce taxes for the wealthy....

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Anyone can flip a burger, scrub a floor, etc... their labor does not pay as well because of this FACT.... not everyone can run a company, hit .300, craft fine carvings, engineer new Cisco code, etc.. Hence why they EARN more.. Not everyone takes the risks on investments in running a business, and it is why the successful ones earn a LOT more

If you FEEL in your SUBJECTIVE commie heart you want to pay for the burden of another, that is great... you have the FREEDOM to do it.. you do not have the right to FORCE that on another...

And funny, how much extra did Gates and Buffet pay the federal government? They were free to pay as much as they thought they should pay

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

not sure that this would solve any problems. you would effectively be increasing the amount of taxes that the lower and middle class pay, as they are the largest consumer of goods and services, and you would then be lowering the amount that high income earners pay as they consume less. the overall affect would be that low income earners rate would creep toward 30% and high earners rate would decrease significantly.

Where do you get the idea that poor people consume more than rich people?

A fair and flat tax on consumption is really the only "fair" method of taxation there is.

people with lower incomes use a disproportionately larger amount of their incomes to purchase goods and services. a family of 4 making $50k annually will spend 85-95% of their income in the economy. while someone making $1M annually will invest a larger share of their income in stock, bonds or other investment vehicles. thus if that person making $1M annually spends $250k on consumables, 30% of that $250K is 5 times more than than that family making $50k however as a percentage of income that is only 25% of their income going towards consumable. 30% of that $250k is $75k in taxes or 7.5% of their total income. even if they spent $500k on consumables they would still only be paying 15% in taxes. while that family making $50k will be closer to 30%. so the average middle class family will see their tax bill increase, while the wealthy will see their tax bill plummet.

why not make taxes based on investment vehicles instead? that would skew that tax code in favor of lower income family so that they have more of their income available for goods and services. this would boost the economy heavily and lower income families would have more money available to invest. how is that any different than making it based on consumption?

 

[DiamondDave]

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

So your definition of a free nation is a plutocracy. The majority of us don't like that idea, and are taking measures to prevent it. Or, given that we are almost there right now, get it turned around.

Your idea of a free nation is taking what you see fir from others for your whims.. all based on your subjective 'fairness'... Well, you can blow that out of your ass

Unlike what you strive for.. in a free society, based on freedom and equality in treatment.... you have the freedom to help others if you wish, or not if you don't wish... in your society, nobody is free

 

[akelch]

Get rid of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax and replace it with HR 25 consumption tax.....ready to voted on.

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

not sure that this would solve any problems. you would effectively be increasing the amount of taxes that the lower and middle class pay, as they are the largest consumer of goods and services, and you would then be lowering the amount that high income earners pay as they consume less. the overall affect would be that low income earners rate would creep toward 30% and high earners rate would decrease significantly.

For more details if the legislation visit http://www.fairtax.org

No one will pay more then 23% and there is a prevision to offset the cost to the poor. So who ever spends more, pays more....no exceptions.

No tax exemptions, no loopholes, no filing, no cheating, etc.

Plus the bill is only 33 pages....vs 75,000 pages

 

[KissMy]

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.

Anyone can flip a burger, scrub a floor, etc... their labor does not pay as well because of this FACT.... not everyone can run a company, hit .300, craft fine carvings, engineer new Cisco code, etc.. Hence why they EARN more.. Not everyone takes the risks on investments in running a business, and it is why the successful ones earn a LOT more

If you FEEL in your SUBJECTIVE commie heart you want to pay for the burden of another, that is great... you have the FREEDOM to do it.. you do not have the right to FORCE that on another...

And funny, how much extra did Gates and Buffet pay the federal government? They were free to pay as much as they thought they should pay

Gates & Buffet know if they pay more in taxes than other rich people are forced to pay, it puts them at the same disadvantage as the middle class which will make them poor. Paying a higher tax rate than their competitors will allow the other rich competition to undercut them & put them out of business. That is the same way the rich put the middle class out of business. Government has to force the rich to pay their share or else some won't do it in order to take out the competition.

 

[tooAlive]

Gates & Buffet know if they pay more in taxes than other rich people are forced to pay, it puts them at the same disadvantage as the middle class which will make them poor. Paying a higher tax rate than their competitors will allow the other rich competition to undercut them & put them out of business. That is the same way the rich put the middle class out of business. Government has to force the rich to pay their share or else some won't do it in order to take out the competition.

You're right.

They should seriously lower taxes for the rich; as they're already carrying almost 70% of the country on their backs. It's time everyone paid their fair share.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

I'm inclined to go this route as well.

not sure that this would solve any problems. you would effectively be increasing the amount of taxes that the lower and middle class pay, as they are the largest consumer of goods and services, and you would then be lowering the amount that high income earners pay as they consume less. the overall affect would be that low income earners rate would creep toward 30% and high earners rate would decrease significantly.

For more details if the legislation visit FairTax Video - Americans For Fair Taxation

No one will pay more then 23% and there is a prevision to offset the cost to the poor. So who ever spends more, pays more....no exceptions.

No tax exemptions, no loopholes, no filing, no cheating, etc.

Plus the bill is only 33 pages....vs 75,000 pages

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation for the first year, is 23% of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total, or $30 on top of every $100 spent—$130 total).[4] After the first year of implementation, this rate is automatically adjusted annually using a predefined formula reflecting actual federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.

 

[KissMy]

Gates & Buffet know if they pay more in taxes than other rich people are forced to pay, it puts them at the same disadvantage as the middle class which will make them poor. Paying a higher tax rate than their competitors will allow the other rich competition to undercut them & put them out of business. That is the same way the rich put the middle class out of business. Government has to force the rich to pay their share or else some won't do it in order to take out the competition.

You're right.

They should seriously lower taxes for the rich; as they're already carrying almost 70% of the country on their backs. It's time everyone paid their fair share.

Do I really have to explain this to you for the tenth time? It's like talking to a brick wall. If they take 80% of the countries earnings, then they have to pay over 80% of the countries taxes or else they are preying on the poor & redistributing wealth to the rich. They put the rest of us out of business with the tax code.

The middle class is carrying the rich on their backs. It's high time the rich learned how to walk on their own.

 

[tooAlive]

Gates & Buffet know if they pay more in taxes than other rich people are forced to pay, it puts them at the same disadvantage as the middle class which will make them poor. Paying a higher tax rate than their competitors will allow the other rich competition to undercut them & put them out of business. That is the same way the rich put the middle class out of business. Government has to force the rich to pay their share or else some won't do it in order to take out the competition.

You're right.

They should seriously lower taxes for the rich; as they're already carrying almost 70% of the country on their backs. It's time everyone paid their fair share.

Do I really have to explain this to you for the tenth time? It's like talking to a brick wall. If they take 80% of the countries earnings, then they have to pay over 80% of the countries taxes or else they are preying on the poor & redistributing wealth to the rich. They put the rest of us out of business with the tax code.

No, they didn't "take" anything. They earned it. And they don't owe anything to anyone.

The ones that don't have wealth should stop complaining about it and start doing something about it. Nobody owes them anything.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

You should really read these boards before you post... Hell TM starts a thread on 94% taxes rate or mentions it at least 94 times a week.

To the OP, the real question is if you make 250k and you pay 90% taxes you only make 25,000$ dollars take home… Where as if you made 249k you would make around 217,000 take home.
At 500k you make about 50k a year take home… Or you can make 249k and make around 217,000$ a year….

This is where the logic gets retarded.

 

[ilia25]

To the OP, the real question is if you make 250k and you pay 90% taxes you only make 25,000$ dollars take home…

I wonder if you ever learn what is a marginal tax rate.

 

[Sallow]

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 are also taking 40% of the nation's wealth at a huge cost to the rest of us.

If tax rates were so burdensome..you wouldn't have a record number (world record) of Billionaires in this country.

It's obvious they aren't being equitable.

 

[Ravi]

Currently the rich use the tax code to prey upon the rest of us stripping us of our earnings. Unless they ACTUALLY pay a higher percent than us, they are preying on us

They already do.

They pay a far higher percentage than you. In fact, 20% of them pay for 70% of all federal taxes.

You and your 80% are only accountable for 30%. So in reality, you're the ones preying on them.

The one's who pay ZERO federal income taxes are the predators.

Like you? And Mitt Romney?

 

[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?

They are also taking 40% of the nation's wealth at a huge cost to the rest of us.

If tax rates were so burdensome..you wouldn't have a record number (world record) of Billionaires in this country.

It's obvious they aren't being equitable.

Again, how are they "taking" anything?

Lower tax rates simply mean they're keeping more of what they earn. None of that is owed to anybody. If the other 80% want more money they should work for it. Not complain about how the rich "steal" from them. That mentality won't get anyone anywhere.

We should be helping people get to where the 20% are, not teach them to live off the wealthy.

 

[tooAlive]

They already do.

They pay a far higher percentage than you. In fact, 20% of them pay for 70% of all federal taxes.

You and your 80% are only accountable for 30%. So in reality, you're the ones preying on them.

The one's who pay ZERO federal income taxes are the predators.

Like you? And Mitt Romney?

False. Romney paid about $3 million in taxes last year. How much did you pay?

Spreading lies only makes you sound more uninformed.