Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was Clinton's top tax rate responsible for the Internet Bubble?

No,

Thanks.

The point is that having the top federal tax rate at 40% does not hurt economic growth

Now prove your claim.

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

Here is what the giveaway to the rich handcuffs and services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Releasea

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

It was awful, they became richer.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

How'd they do that? The awesome liberal education system? DERP!

Your ability to ignore facts is amazing.

Your list of BS "facts" is long and distinguished.

 

[francoHFW]

The top federal tax rate in 1990 went from 28% then to 40% by 1994. That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

Here is what the giveaway to the rich handcuffs and services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Releasea

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

It was awful, they became richer.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

How'd they do that? The awesome liberal education system? DERP!

Your ability to ignore facts is amazing.

Your list of BS "facts" is long and distinguished.

Great talking point but total b*******, super duper. Any argument against the idea that GOP giveaway to the rich tax rates are ruining the country? Spending half the usual on infrastructure is also idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, well, if Hufflepuff Post says so, then . . . I believe it even less.

Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.

Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.

You go with that, Sparky.

Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.

Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.

If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."

Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.

Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.

What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary.

If he said that, he lied.

That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash.

If the alternative is sitting on a pile of cash earning 2%, I'd prefer a buyback.

They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings.

I don't want my companies to make stupid investments at inflated prices, just to use up cash.

So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut?

Because the highest corporate tax rate in the 1st world makes us less competitive.

Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments.

Your moronic claim never fails to make me laugh.

the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

I wonder, is that because the after tax profit is higher at a 21% tax rate than at a 35% tax rate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That increase did not prevent the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

That increase did not cause the rapid GDP growth of the late 1990s!

Here is what the giveaway to the rich handcuffs and services for everyone else has done to the country super dupers...
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Releasea

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

It was awful, they became richer.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

How'd they do that? The awesome liberal education system? DERP!

Your ability to ignore facts is amazing.

Your list of BS "facts" is long and distinguished.

Great talking point but total b*******, super duper. Any argument against the idea that GOP giveaway to the rich tax rates are ruining the country? Spending half the usual on infrastructure is also idiocy.

Any argument against the idea that GOP giveaway to the rich tax rates are ruining the country?

If your moronic claim was true, the rich would be paying a smaller portion of income taxes, not a larger portion.

Spending half the usual on infrastructure is also idiocy.

Well, if you want to reduce transfer payments in order to increase infrastructure spending, I'm willing to listen.

 

[Markle]

The anti-capitalist folks here are happy to ignore the FACT that production per person has not increased due to what the worker is doing but rather due to the business owner providing better tools along with improved machines for production and today, robots.

The workers at Ford motor company did not work any faster or lift any more than they did before the Ford assembly line. It was the Ford Motor COMPANY that increased the production.

 

[Markle]

The give away to the rich will become very apparent for many when they do their taxes. For those with a large family and a mortgage, a $24,000 standard deduction is not equal to the loss of personal exemptions + deductions. For single parents it can be even worse.

If they have a mortgage, that family will itemize their deductions. This will result in deductions in excess of the $24,000 you cited.

Those standard deductions, are they not nearly double what they were before the tax cut?

 

[Markle]

Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.

Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.

What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

Who provides the money for a corporation to pay taxes?

 

[Flopper]

Yeah, Huffpro articles usually require someone to have more than a third grade education to understand.

Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.

You go with that, Sparky.

Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.

Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.

If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."

Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.

Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.

What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary.

If he said that, he lied.

That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash.

If the alternative is sitting on a pile of cash earning 2%, I'd prefer a buyback.

They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings.

I don't want my companies to make stupid investments at inflated prices, just to use up cash.

So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut?

Because the highest corporate tax rate in the 1st world makes us less competitive.

Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments.

Your moronic claim never fails to make me laugh.

the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

I wonder, is that because the after tax profit is higher at a 21% tax rate than at a 35% tax rate?

He said he had a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is easy to accomplish.

 

[Markle]

He said he had a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is easy to accomplish.

Which is not true but Progressives have nothing else.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.

You go with that, Sparky.

Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.

Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.

If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."

Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.

Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.

What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary.

If he said that, he lied.

That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash.

If the alternative is sitting on a pile of cash earning 2%, I'd prefer a buyback.

They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings.

I don't want my companies to make stupid investments at inflated prices, just to use up cash.

So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut?

Because the highest corporate tax rate in the 1st world makes us less competitive.

Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments.

Your moronic claim never fails to make me laugh.

the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.

I wonder, is that because the after tax profit is higher at a 21% tax rate than at a 35% tax rate?

He said he had a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is easy to accomplish.

He's full of shit, which is easy for a liberal to accomplish.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Third choice should be. 3. Yes. My boss would have to lay me off due to taxes.

It's true. Millions would lose their jobs if their boss or his company was taxed at 70 percent.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

No my real income is $28,000 a year, and since we arent supposed to double tax money, the government is still double taxing, but at a lower rate on dividends. You are a stupid, jealous twit, who cant use the grey matter above your shoulders to make something of yourself, so MUST, take from me, just so you can feel, equal. Dumbasses like you are the reason why cities, states and countries turn into 3rd world shitholes....

 

[caddo kid]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

For years I have advocated a graduated/tiered tax. For example:

Your income is between $0 - $25K/your tax = $0

Your income is between $25+ - $50K/your tax = 5 %

you get the idea

Also: NO write offs, NO deductions, NO credits, NO bovine feces, NO nothing

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

For years I have advocated a graduated/tiered tax. For example:

Your income is between $0 - $25K/your tax = $0

Your income is between $25+ - $50K/your tax = 5 %

you get the idea

Also: NO write offs, NO deductions, NO credits, NO bovine feces, NO nothing

Shame you are too stupid to not know how to make money, but punish those that work 80 hours a week and have degrees in higher education. I say, take away welfare, stop giving people money to sit on their liberal lazy asses, thus making them "WORK" so they can survive. This not only will reduce the national debt, but enable the new Republican Voters to rely on their God given skills, instead of being a victim of liberalism. Also we would no longer need a wall at our southern border because those that are coming here for our welfare programs will turn around, so another win for the US.

The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

 

[danielpalos]

The anti-capitalist folks here are happy to ignore the FACT that production per person has not increased due to what the worker is doing but rather due to the business owner providing better tools along with improved machines for production and today, robots.

The workers at Ford motor company did not work any faster or lift any more than they did before the Ford assembly line. It was the Ford Motor COMPANY that increased the production.

What the anti-socialist folks here are happy to ignore is that a First World economy is not free. Henry Ford knew that. Why don't modern capitalists.

 

[caddo kid]

I would like to know which members of the USMB here warm over $10 million a year.

The income above 10 million will be taxed at 70%.

Please vote in my poll.

Only if it is "EARNED" income. Dividend and capital gains wont fall into the earned income part, and most people who make over $10 million get it through options again not getting taxed as earned income. So this is all smoke and mirrors but supposed to make the petulant impoverished welfare queens and queers feel like she is working for them....


My earned income is around 30 thousand dollars a year. I have dividends coming in around $440,000 a year I only am taxed about $22,000 on that dividend income and $6,000 on the earned income.....See the difference?

This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.

Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.

For years I have advocated a graduated/tiered tax. For example:

Your income is between $0 - $25K/your tax = $0

Your income is between $25+ - $50K/your tax = 5 %

you get the idea

Also: NO write offs, NO deductions, NO credits, NO bovine feces, NO nothing

Shame you are too stupid to not know how to make money, but punish those that work 80 hours a week and have degrees in higher education. I say, take away welfare, stop giving people money to sit on their liberal lazy asses, thus making them "WORK" so they can survive. This not only will reduce the national debt, but enable the new Republican Voters to rely on their God given skills, instead of being a victim of liberalism. Also we would no longer need a wall at our southern border because those that are coming here for our welfare programs will turn around, so another win for the US.

The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.

The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

You call me stupid? I paid off my mortgage within the past 12 months. That is saving me many hundreds in interest alone, every month. I paid off over $100 large. You are too stupid to know what that even means.

So, you believe the poorest folks in the nation, the ones that can least afford to pay an income tax, should pay an income tax?

That is your implication.

 

[U2Edge]

There are taxes on capital gains. They need to be raised!

If you want to stop growth, that's exactly what you do.

The reason capital gains taxes are not ridiculous is to encourage investments in the US. If tax rates are too high, the risk of making money is not worth it. Investors would rather invest in tax-free bonds or off shore investments.

So now we make capital gains taxes 50%. You purchased your home in 1990 for 150K. Today you sold it for 250K. You made 100K from your long-term investment. But now you owe government 50K of that for capital gains taxes.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world in terms of a revenue collected per year as a percentage of its GDP. U.S. tax revenues are only about 22% of annual GDP while in a country like Norway, they amount to nearly 60% of GDP. Is business and investment dead in Norway? Nope. Norway has a strong economy.

Who are you kidding? Federal taxes are just the start. Then add social security/medicare. And we are ready to start the race. We are taxed at that rate also. Only we add other things like massive security state and military that denies us things. We do get a benefit of our fiat currency used as a medium of exchange without a surcharge for much of our business and trade. There are hundreds and thousands of taxes we pay. And it adds up. Also, many of the products made here are taxed at each level of production until the completed product. That can be 20% of the cost before we are charged again as a sales tax and more.

If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.

Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.

 

[U2Edge]

Typical libstain wants your money so she can spend it. Fuck all that.

It's not tax revenue they're after. It's power. Very few wealthy people will pay 70%. They'll leave the country first, and politicians know that. So, such insane tax rates always come with a wheel barrow full of "incentives" and loopholes. Congress uses these as carrots and sticks to manipulate society, to control private wealth. As long as rich people do as they're told, and don't piss off Congress, they'll be left alone, with most of their wealth intact.

There are 134 countries around the world with higher tax rates than the United States. Given that a rich person is unlikely to move to a 3rd world country, where will they go to after they leave the United States? If its a first world country, the tax rate will likely be the same or higher.

 

[U2Edge]

Your premise seems to be everything belongs to the collective. You are advocating slavery. Ones earnings belong to no one but the earner. The great experiment in collectivism (the Soviet Union) failed. You are one of those who refuses to learn from history.

What you earn, is based on the MARKET. The MARKET decides your salary. The MARKET decides what your house is worth. You did not create the MARKET, you were born into it. In order to keep the MARKET going and to protect it, you need to be taxed at a proper rate based on your income level. This is so the country's government receives the required revenue to pay to defend itself, to insure its survival, and to insure the survival of the MARKET that you depend on for your salary and other earnings.

The best MARKETS in the world are in countries where the governments are able to defend themselves and provide a stable environment where the MARKET can thrive.

If you don't like that you can try your luck in Somalia. In Somalia there is no government to tax you. Move there and see if you like it. If your lucky enough to make a profit in some form of business, you'll have to find a way to defend yourself because there is no government that will send the police or military to defend you are save you. There is no government to collect your trash or put any fires out on or near your property. You'll be responsible for your own plumbing and electricity. You'll be responsible for your own health care as well. Good Luck.