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

[ilia25]

How much in effective taxes did the Top Rate actually end up paying when rates were that high?

Answer about 38%.

I'm not sure who the "Top Rate" are, but 70% top marginal rate kind of implies that an average rich guy would be paying around 38% effective rate.

Do you know what we the American people were promised when the 17th Amendment was being shoved down our throats? We were promised if we passed this new "income tax" that it would never ever exceed 3%.

Life is not fair -- to you especially. Deal with it.

 

[Charles_Main]

How much in effective taxes did the Top Rate actually end up paying when rates were that high?

Answer about 38%.

I'm not sure who the "Top Rate" are, but 70% top marginal rate kind of implies that an average rich guy would be paying around 38% effective rate.

Then why do you and people on the left keep saying look how good things were when rates were 70% or 90% but always fail to point out the difference between now and then when it comes to Deductions, Exemptions, and loop holes?

You have brainless Liberals out there, that hear that shit, and actually think business would be just fine and nobody would lose a job if "effective" tax rates were that high.

 

[ilia25]

Nope -- as you just explained in details, doctors in Ontario are taxed when they work too many hours, not when they are making too much money. Those are very, very different scenarios.

How is that any different than anyone else choosing to work longer hours or not to make more money?

Most people can work 24/7 and would still not reach the 70% bracket. Ontario system makes doctors paying 90% tax on every hour beyond the limit -- no matter what is his income. Still don't see a difference?

Look, there is simply no magical way of avoiding taxes beyond some modest saving. You have more deductions in corporate taxes, but they only help you so much. Deductions for personal incomes are even more limited.

And no, paying $1000 an hour will not help it either. So if there is 70% tom marginal rates, people will have to pay it.

There are lots of ways of avoiding taxes. You just don't know how to do it.[/QUOTE]

You are basically dying that everyone can punch trough a brick wall, as long as he has enough will. Or enough money in the pocket.

I'm sorry, but it just does not work that way.

Even if there is a loophole allowing people to drastically cut on the tax payment, it will be closed as soon as IRS learns about it.

Only small business income is taxed at personal rate -- not the whole business revenue. Whatever business revenue the owner invests back in the business is not subjected to any tax. Thus, hi personal income rates would encourage the owner to hire more workers, rather than to buy himself a bigger boat.

Yeah, I know income is taxed. Outside of tax shields for depreciation, where in the tax code does it allow for the write-off of new investment?[/quote]

Right were it says that the salary the business owner pays to his employee is not taxed as owner's income. Same goes true to any other expenses the owner incurs while operating or expanding his business.

Taxes don't drive money out of the economy -- whatever that means...

It will drive money offshore, just like corporations do now, corporations that include Microsoft and Apple.[/quote]

I only heard of money that were earned offshore in the first place -- Apple chooses to keep those funds offshore, yes. But only because Apple has no use for those money yet.

They transfer their intellectual property through Ireland to Bermuda so that customers buying their product are doing so from offshore, tax-free entities, lowering their tax bill.

They transfer what to where? And who exactly is buying "from offshore"?

Can you now see the irony in this thread?

Nope. All I see is you making statements that either highly implausible, or demonstrably false -- no offence.

 

[Avorysuds]

Link to any person in American history that paid 70% taxes.

Link to me implying that someone had.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate."
Posted by you....

Or what was the point of your thread? Are we talking about a "tax rate" before or after deductions. If after deductions what do you think people were paying that make 15 million+ a year compared to today.

Really, what's your fucking point...

 

[ilia25]

How much in effective taxes did the Top Rate actually end up paying when rates were that high?

Answer about 38%.

I'm not sure who the "Top Rate" are, but 70% top marginal rate kind of implies that an average rich guy would be paying around 38% effective rate.

Then why do you and people on the left keep saying look how good things were when rates were 70% or 90%

Because anyone, who decides to get into discussion about taxes, should first learn what "top tax rate" means.

 

[ilia25]

Link to any person in American history that paid 70% taxes.

Link to me implying that someone had.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate."
Posted by you....

Or what was the point of your thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

70% was the rate of the highest bracket.

 

[Political Junky]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

None of the people who started those companies were paying it. Idiot.

The high rate encouraged business to reinvest in their company. That's growth.

 

[Avorysuds]

More or less, if we vreated a top tax rate of 100% but still taxed every single person that is a US citizen the same due to loop holes and deductions the OP is claiming we would be better off simply because the top tax rate says 100%???

ilia52 brought up the 70% tax rate, not me or anyone else. What's the point of bringing it up onlt to say "well duuuh, no one paid that much." Yeah, we know, no one ever paid 70-94% taxes, ever... or else America would be a third world country.

 

[Avorysuds]

Link to me implying that someone had.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate."
Posted by you....

Or what was the point of your thread?

Tax bracket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70% was the rate of the highest bracket.

Holy fuck dude...

You call me out saying: "Link to me implying that someone had."

I call you out, in your fucking OP: "Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded."

Then you link me: Tax bracket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 70% was the rate of the highest bracket.

You owned yourself... Do we really need to keep going?

 

[Clementine]

Yes, I do! Why wouldn't I?



We should rise the capital gain tax as well.

Why don't we stop the bullshit here and tell the truth for once.
You guys want to get as much money as you can in the hands of government as possible.

BS is that claim of yours. What we want the rich to pay their fair share. And not "to the government", but to seniors and disabled, to support children in poor families, to support our military, etc.

70% would be way more than a fair share. Even half is insane. Government is so fucking clueless about how wealth is created and they come up with so many regulations to make it difficult. When people follow the rules in place and still manage to succeed, the politicians are right there ready to take it.

 

[Avorysuds]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

None of the people who started those companies were paying it. Idiot.

The high rate encouraged business to reinvest in their company. That's growth.

Yes and when taxes are low no one invests in their company... Ever.

Fact is you're wrong. What happens is they "invest" in their company to avoid losing money to the Government, thus shrinking Government Revenues by causing "mal-investment" in their company.

When a company buys 20 Cargo vans it does not need, simply because "at least it's something" that does not help the economy nor does it help the business.

So in fact all you have done is created a semi prohibition on profit and wealth. People then find ways around that system through buying dumb crap then taking it home, or giving it out as a prize, or letting it rot out in the rain. Companies then start hording money and moving it shores, thanks to people just like you…

Here is the thing, if you were in a successful business you too would be doing these things. You wouldn’t turn around and give a raise to people because that’s too permeate and in no way adds up to an asset.

Now I’m not claiming that lowering taxes at this point in time is the answer to fix the economy. But everyone knows, even Obama that raising taxes would destroy the already shit economy, that’s why he gave so many “tax credits” in his stimulus and as of 4 years in office managed to not increase a single tax on anyone.


It's kinda like the wars, Obama was gonna end em, until he became President.

 

[Trajan]

Helluva coincidence that several Democratic administrations left rates of 3%or 4% and never a Republican in that range. If the Republican party doesn't get the message it was just handed and then do something to correct it......GoodBye Red Stuff!!

thx for not reading what I write and gave you......

You know something...in Feb. 1961 I was laid off from the first good job I had and was required to take a 20% pay cut in order to stay with the Union Carbide Corp. During the last three months of 1960 and the first six months of 1961 over 2,000 of the 8,500 employees where I worked were laid off. It's not like I've read these figures in a book and feel nothing.

The irony of this is that other than Anderson(I) in 1980 I continued to vote a straight Republican ticket all the way to Reagan's second term before I made basic changes to what I believed the party was doing for ordinary working folks. I've voted Democratic three times in my life...Kerry once and Obama twice. I didn't vote for Democrats.....I voted against Republicans.

bully for you...and what does that have to do with my response? what if its not in a nice shiny chart you can't grok it?

 

[ilia25]

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate."
Posted by you....

Or what was the point of your thread?

Tax bracket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70% was the rate of the highest bracket.

Holy fuck dude...

You call me out saying: "Link to me implying that someone had."

I call you out, in your fucking OP: "Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded."

Then you link me: Tax bracket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 70% was the rate of the highest bracket.

You owned yourself... Do we really need to keep going?

TOP tax rate IS the rate of the highest bracket. That's were the "top" comes from.

 

[Toro]

Most people can work 24/7 and would still not reach the 70% bracket. Ontario system makes doctors paying 90% tax on every hour beyond the limit -- no matter what is his income. Still don't see a difference?

The point is that we have a demonstrable event showing that high taxes effects outcomes. Because taxes are so high, doctors work less and there are shortages.

Right were it says that the salary the business owner pays to his employee is not taxed as owner's income. Same goes true to any other expenses the owner incurs while operating or expanding his business.

Your claim is news to me. Admittedly, I deal primarily with big businesses, but I've never heard of taking income and reinvesting in expansion decreases your tax liability outside of normal depreciation. Can you show me?

I only heard of money that were earned offshore in the first place -- Apple chooses to keep those funds offshore, yes. But only because Apple has no use for those money yet. ...

They transfer what to where? And who exactly is buying "from offshore"?

What happens is that companies "sell" their intellectual property to a controlled offshore entity in a low tax or no-tax jurisdiction, usually through Ireland or the Netherlands, and then onto Bermuda or the Caymans. Because the intellectual property is domiciled in an offshore jurisdiction, when it is licensed it is not subject to US federal income tax. This is one of many reasons why the effective corporate tax is lower than the stated tax rate.

Nope. All I see is you making statements that either highly implausible, or demonstrably false -- no offence.

Sorry. It's not. I see it in my professional life. I see tax blockers set up specifically to avoid taxes, all perfectly legal.

 

[Political Junky]

None of the people who started those companies were paying it. Idiot.

The high rate encouraged business to reinvest in their company. That's growth.

Yes and when taxes are low no one invests in their company... Ever.

Fact is you're wrong. What happens is they "invest" in their company to avoid losing money to the Government, thus shrinking Government Revenues by causing "mal-investment" in their company.

When a company buys 20 Cargo vans it does not need, simply because "at least it's something" that does not help the economy nor does it help the business.

So in fact all you have done is created a semi prohibition on profit and wealth. People then find ways around that system through buying dumb crap then taking it home, or giving it out as a prize, or letting it rot out in the rain. Companies then start hording money and moving it shores, thanks to people just like you…

Here is the thing, if you were in a successful business you too would be doing these things. You wouldn’t turn around and give a raise to people because that’s too permeate and in no way adds up to an asset.

Now I’m not claiming that lowering taxes at this point in time is the answer to fix the economy. But everyone knows, even Obama that raising taxes would destroy the already shit economy, that’s why he gave so many “tax credits” in his stimulus and as of 4 years in office managed to not increase a single tax on anyone.


It's kinda like the wars, Obama was gonna end em, until he became President.

He did end the one in Iraq, and killed bin Laden.

 

[gwennie]

Yes, I do! Why wouldn't I?



We should rise the capital gain tax as well.

Why don't we stop the bullshit here and tell the truth for once.
You guys want to get as much money as you can in the hands of government as possible.

BS is that claim of yours. What we want the rich to pay their fair share. And not "to the government", but to seniors and disabled, to support children in poor families, to support our military, etc.

Oh really? Then it's not necessary to tax everyone to death.....tax rates should be at 8%, 12%, 18%, 22% and 40%, with the lowest bracket starting at $10k and the highest bracket starting at $1M. Even if people's income comes from capital gains, it gets taxed at the same amount as their regular income would be taxed. Also, taxes for Medicare should NOT be capped at income levels of approx $102k.....the Medicare tax should be paid no matter what amount of money you make. If you do that, then Medicare would be well-funded. So, dude, it's not the rich who always avoid paying taxes......it's the "poor" (single people making at least $10K) who do as well. They should be REQUIRED to pay something into the system, even if it's $500. Those who are veterans, children, severely disabled, retired, and individuals making under $10k......they don't have to pay any taxes, BUT if they are caught making money "under the table" by performing actual work or selling drugs or prostitution or whatever, then not only should they serve time in prison but also have to pay back a minimum of $10k to the govt. But, I'm guessing, the liberals would be completely against that.

 

[gwennie]

BS is that claim of yours. What we want the rich to pay their fair share. And not "to the government", but to seniors and disabled, to support children in poor families, to support our military, etc.

Let the government take the money they take in now in taxes and do a better job spending it.

You don't like the tax code fine,change it.but to go about basically calling people cheaters and crooks and tax evaders when they pay EXACTLY what the law allows is almost criminal...

You guys pretty much ran your whole campaign calling wealthy people criminals.
And the dopes in your party fell for it hook,line and sinker.

Harry Reid has evidence Mitt paid no taxes for 10 years.

No he doesn't.....otherwise he would have used it with impunity during the presidential election process. Liar....

 

[Avorysuds]

The high rate encouraged business to reinvest in their company. That's growth.

Yes and when taxes are low no one invests in their company... Ever.

Fact is you're wrong. What happens is they "invest" in their company to avoid losing money to the Government, thus shrinking Government Revenues by causing "mal-investment" in their company.

When a company buys 20 Cargo vans it does not need, simply because "at least it's something" that does not help the economy nor does it help the business.

So in fact all you have done is created a semi prohibition on profit and wealth. People then find ways around that system through buying dumb crap then taking it home, or giving it out as a prize, or letting it rot out in the rain. Companies then start hording money and moving it shores, thanks to people just like you…

Here is the thing, if you were in a successful business you too would be doing these things. You wouldn’t turn around and give a raise to people because that’s too permeate and in no way adds up to an asset.

Now I’m not claiming that lowering taxes at this point in time is the answer to fix the economy. But everyone knows, even Obama that raising taxes would destroy the already shit economy, that’s why he gave so many “tax credits” in his stimulus and as of 4 years in office managed to not increase a single tax on anyone.


It's kinda like the wars, Obama was gonna end em, until he became President.

He did end the one in Iraq, and killed bin Laden.

You mean Bush ended the war, Obama tried to stay in it passed the timetable set by Bush, Obama was kicked the fuck out by the Iraq Government. Military spending is higher now than under Bush and we are in many more wars/conflicts than when we were under Bush but Obama has a D next to his name so you could give a fuck.

OMFGZ!!! Obama killed Obama all by himself!!!! He drew up the plan after getting the Intel, dropped in the danja zone and blasted the muh fuk ass all by himself! No one had anything to do with it! Claiming Obama got or killed OBL is as desperate bas claiming you don’t support the troops if you don’t send them into war.
One of these days you will have to answer for the big war party ways that of the Democrat party you support.

 

[Avorysuds]

Let the government take the money they take in now in taxes and do a better job spending it.

You don't like the tax code fine,change it.but to go about basically calling people cheaters and crooks and tax evaders when they pay EXACTLY what the law allows is almost criminal...

You guys pretty much ran your whole campaign calling wealthy people criminals.
And the dopes in your party fell for it hook,line and sinker.

Harry Reid has evidence Mitt paid no taxes for 10 years.

No he doesn't.....otherwise he would have used it with impunity during the presidential election process. Liar....

Rabbi is a hard core Neocon, he supported the progressive liberal named Mitt Romney. More or less what I'm saying is, Rabbi was making fun of Reid for lying...

Oddly no Dem on planet earth felt HR should be held accountable for lying, in fact they prolly liked/loved that he had the balls to lie as much as he did.

 

[Avorysuds]

The high rate encouraged business to reinvest in their company. That's growth.

Yes and when taxes are low no one invests in their company... Ever.

Fact is you're wrong. What happens is they "invest" in their company to avoid losing money to the Government, thus shrinking Government Revenues by causing "mal-investment" in their company.

When a company buys 20 Cargo vans it does not need, simply because "at least it's something" that does not help the economy nor does it help the business.

So in fact all you have done is created a semi prohibition on profit and wealth. People then find ways around that system through buying dumb crap then taking it home, or giving it out as a prize, or letting it rot out in the rain. Companies then start hording money and moving it shores, thanks to people just like you…

Here is the thing, if you were in a successful business you too would be doing these things. You wouldn’t turn around and give a raise to people because that’s too permeate and in no way adds up to an asset.

Now I’m not claiming that lowering taxes at this point in time is the answer to fix the economy. But everyone knows, even Obama that raising taxes would destroy the already shit economy, that’s why he gave so many “tax credits” in his stimulus and as of 4 years in office managed to not increase a single tax on anyone.


It's kinda like the wars, Obama was gonna end em, until he became President.

He did end the one in Iraq, and killed bin Laden.

After Nissour Square and Collateral Murder and scores of other incidents by both members of the military and private security contractors, the Iraqis had one demand – if US troops were to stay, they would have to be bound by the laws of the country, and if they violated them, they would be subject to prosecution. The Pentagon could not abide by this, and so the war ended. The Iraqis ended the war, as surely as they forced a timeline for withdrawal with President Bush in 2008.

It was not for lack of trying on the part of two successive Administrations. Under Bush and Obama, the United States desperately tried to stay in Iraq for a longer period of time. This year saw near-constant negotiations on a residual force. Top generals and the Secretary of Defense said repeatedly that they would like to see some troops stay in Iraq. If we had any ability to bend the Iraqis to our will, we would not have seen the casing of the colors yesterday.



The Iraqis Ended the Iraq War. Period. | FDL News Desk

Use google, it's easy and it's written about all over the place. Dems just don't care because it was Bush that ended the war, not Obama. So of course like always you credit Obama for something he in fact had 100% nothing to do with.