Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[ilia25]

Nobody is forcing that person to earn so little.

Our society and our economic system does by letting only lucky few to become a high-paying CEO -- and leaving low-paying jobs to the rest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered your question -- I don't care. Just as I don't care what will be the color of John Boehner tie the next time I see him on TV. My world would not become any more or less perfect because of it.

So if raising the top rate to 70% reduces the amount the rich pay, that would be fine with you.
Interesting.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay. But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay.

Prove it.

But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Prove it.

 

[gwennie]

Nobody is forcing that person to earn so little.

Our society and our economic system does by letting only lucky few to become a high-paying CEO -- and leaving low-paying jobs to the rest.

Agreed that there is no one out there.....including football and baseball players.....who are worth $30M (or more) paychecks. That's just plain insane. The sneaky thing these execs do, though, is earn income at $150k/year but receive $29.75M in bonuses/stock options/etc, and that is how they can avoid paying taxes on their full income. It doesn't really affect them if they get taxed at 35% on their $150k income if they can avoid paying 48% taxes on their multimillion dollar income.....that would hurt substantially, though they would still be rich by most people's standards. Should they be paying someone $35k/year to work in a factory making the widget? Depends. But does the person working in a factory put in 80 work weeks, make decisions daily that impact the betterment of the business, pay for their own graduate level education to advance to higher level positions in the corporation, pay 35% in federal taxes plus another 7% in employment taxes, provide health insurance to everyone, and a 401k retirement account to others? NO, they don't. There is a reason why factory workers make far less than executives, but execs have been milking their pay increases for far too long at the expense of their employees....it's time to put an end to it.

 

[ilia25]

So if raising the top rate to 70% reduces the amount the rich pay, that would be fine with you.
Interesting.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay. But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay.

Prove it.

But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Prove it.

LOL I'll do it for $200.

But honestly, why don't you find yourself a math teacher?

 

[freedombecki]

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

That money is their money, and not the government's property. Please tell congress to stop expropriating other people's money. Earn your own. It's out there. You just have to work for it, that's all, doing something you may not care to do, such as serve other people instead of entitling yourself to somebody else's American dream. Get your own.

 

[tooAlive]

Nobody is forcing that person to earn so little.

Our society and our economic system does by letting only lucky few to become a high-paying CEO -- and leaving low-paying jobs to the rest.

Agreed that there is no one out there.....including football and baseball players.....who are worth $30M (or more) paychecks. That's just plain insane. The sneaky thing these execs do, though, is earn income at $150k/year but receive $29.75M in bonuses/stock options/etc, and that is how they can avoid paying taxes on their full income. It doesn't really affect them if they get taxed at 35% on their $150k income if they can avoid paying 48% taxes on their multimillion dollar income.....that would hurt substantially, though they would still be rich by most people's standards. Should they be paying someone $35k/year to work in a factory making the widget? Depends. But does the person working in a factory put in 80 work weeks, make decisions daily that impact the betterment of the business, pay for their own graduate level education to advance to higher level positions in the corporation, pay 35% in federal taxes plus another 7% in employment taxes, provide health insurance to everyone, and a 401k retirement account to others? NO, they don't. There is a reason why factory workers make far less than executives, but execs have been milking their pay increases for far too long at the expense of their employees....it's time to put an end to it.

Maybe those execs don't want to keep sending more of their hard-earned income to a government that is wasteful?

 

[ilia25]

Nobody is forcing that person to earn so little.

Our society and our economic system does by letting only lucky few to become a high-paying CEO -- and leaving low-paying jobs to the rest.

Agreed that there is no one out there.....including football and baseball players.....who are worth $30M (or more) paychecks. That's just plain insane. The sneaky thing these execs do, though, is earn income at $150k/year but receive $29.75M in bonuses/stock options/etc, and that is how they can avoid paying taxes on their full income. It doesn't really affect them if they get taxed at 35% on their $150k income if they can avoid paying 48% taxes on their multimillion dollar income.....that would hurt substantially, though they would still be rich by most people's standards. Should they be paying someone $35k/year to work in a factory making the widget? Depends. But does the person working in a factory put in 80 work weeks, make decisions daily that impact the betterment of the business, pay for their own graduate level education to advance to higher level positions in the corporation, pay 35% in federal taxes plus another 7% in employment taxes, provide health insurance to everyone, and a 401k retirement account to others? NO, they don't. There is a reason why factory workers make far less than executives, but execs have been milking their pay increases for far too long at the expense of their employees....it's time to put an end to it.

Gee, thanks! Spending time on this thread made me having serious doubts about the sanity of the world

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay. But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay.

Prove it.

But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Prove it.

LOL I'll do it for $200.

But honestly, why don't you find yourself a math teacher?

How would that help you with your ignorance?

 

[ilia25]

Maybe those execs don't want to keep sending more of their hard-earned income to a government that is wasteful?

Examples of a government waste? Preferably with numbers, so we can estimate what part of 3 trillion that the government spends is wasted.

 

[tooAlive]

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay.

Prove it.

But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.

Prove it.

LOL I'll do it for $200.

But honestly, why don't you find yourself a math teacher?

How would that help you with your ignorance?

Those who believe in socialism have no coherent reasoning. Their beliefs are based on envy and jealousy. You can't fix that. In their mind, they will always be right. Heck, even Hitler thought he was doing a noble thing.

 

[tooAlive]

Maybe those execs don't want to keep sending more of their hard-earned income to a government that is wasteful?

Examples of a government waste? Preferably with numbers, so we can estimate what part of 3 trillion that the government spends is wasted.

Obama invests $6 billion on 'green'

Daily Kos: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006

THIRTY MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS SPENT ON MANGO FARMERS IN PAKISTAN; Congressman Reed calls expenditure a ridiculous example of waste | Congressman Tom Reed

Federal Government Pays Dead Workers $120 Million A Year: Report

Just to name a few examples. There's more.

And that's not even mentioning the excess being spent on defense and welfare programs.

 

[ilia25]

Maybe those execs don't want to keep sending more of their hard-earned income to a government that is wasteful?

Examples of a government waste? Preferably with numbers, so we can estimate what part of 3 trillion that the government spends is wasted.

Obama invests $6 billion on 'green'

And that is a waste because the global warming is a myth?

Daily Kos: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006

H.R. 6407 requires that the Postal Service rapidly pre-fund its retirement health benefits -- gee, what a waste!

THIRTY MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS SPENT ON MANGO FARMERS IN PAKISTAN; Congressman Reed calls expenditure a ridiculous example of waste | Congressman Tom Reed

OK, USAID fighting for hearts and minds in Pakistan is hardly a waste. But even if it is, 30 millions are whopping 0.001% of total spending. And that's all the Congressman Reed could find -- 0.001%?

Federal Government Pays Dead Workers $120 Million A Year: Report

So some people are scamming the government, other scam private investors or companies -- that's not a waste. But since those scammers took the advantage of the govt. sloppiness, let's be generous and count it as a waste. Another 0.004%.

Just to name a few examples. There's more.

Well, at this rate, you'll need a lot more examples to prove that even 1% of the government spending goes to waste.

Like hundreds more. You think you could have managed that?

 

[tooAlive]

You know what Ilia, I respect your stance. If that's what you ultimately believe then so be it. We're obviously not going to agree.

 

[ilia25]

You know what Ilia, I respect your stance. If that's what you ultimately believe then so be it. We're obviously not going to agree.

Well, thanks, for a graceful exit Sorry if I was too harsh on you.

 

[tooAlive]

You know what Ilia, I respect your stance. If that's what you ultimately believe then so be it. We're obviously not going to agree.

Well, thanks, for a graceful exit Sorry if I was too harsh on you.

Thank you, Ilia. And forgive me as well, I know I wasn't the nicest debater either. It's easy to get carried away when debating politics. No hard feelings.

I'm sure you must have valid reasons or experiences to draw the conclusions you have, and I respect them.

All the best.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes. The market happens to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top. So the progressive tax system simply restores the fairness somewhat.

The market doesn't redistribute jack.

Of course it does, you silly thing!

How else do you think Bill Gates had "earned" his billions -- by working 40,000 hours per week?

You do realize that Microsoft sells billions of dollars of product every year don't you?

Anyone who voluntarily buys a share owns a piece of Microsoft. That is not redistribution because those buying stock are buying something with value so both parties benefit.

Taking my money by force and giving it to someone else is redistribution it is also theft.

 

[editec]

We could start to make our tax system fairer by taxing every dollar in the same way regardless of how it was made.

If every dollar was FAIRLY taxed identically to the way INCOME from LABOR is taxed we could not be worrying about the deficit.

And if every dollar made from labor was taxed for social security was FLAT TAXED, guess what?

Social Security would be solvent until every person reading this (and beyond) had great grandchildren.

YOU guys want FLAT and FAIR taxation systems?

There they are.

 

[Toro]

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

Because its my money and its my company. If you don't like how I pay myself, go work somewhere else or start your own company.

 

[Toro]

And really, why should Tom Brady be paid so much more than the secretary for the Pats? Do you think he's really worth it? Of course not. He just throws a football. The secretary has to file things. As a fan, it's very important to me to know that all those files are right where they should be because that's what I'm paying for when I go to the stadium. It's only fair.

 

[Toro]

The market doesn't redistribute jack.

Of course it does, you silly thing!

How else do you think Bill Gates had "earned" his billions -- by working 40,000 hours per week?

You do realize that Microsoft sells billions of dollars of product every year don't you?

Anyone who voluntarily buys a share owns a piece of Microsoft. That is not redistribution because those buying stock are buying something with value so both parties benefit.

Taking my money by force and giving it to someone else is redistribution it is also theft.

It's pretty amazing to me that some people think its about how many hours a week someone works, as if working at 7/11 equates to discovering a new drug for cancer or Alzheimer's.