Don’t complain if you don’t receive your Social Security Check

[struth]

I'm letting him bury himself in his own ignorance.

But returning the top marginal rate to 90% for those making over $1M would work.

talk about crashing production and innovation. I mean who would want to make that sort of money if 90 percent is then going to be taken away from you and given to the Govt?

 

[Lesh]

talk about crashing production and innovation. I mean who would want to make that sort of money if 90 percent is then going to be taken away from you and given to the Govt?

And yet back on the late 50s there were many rich folks subject to that tax

 

[struth]

And yet back on the late 50s there were many rich folks subject to that tax

Not really, nobody actually paid it, there were so many tax loopholes. We have simplified the tax code since then

 

[Mac-7]

That's like blaming the fire department for not arriving to your house faster after you've already set the drapes on fire. Trump made a backroom deal with the Taliban behind everyone's backs, and gave them everything, with nearly nothing in return. Sound familiar? He tied the military's hands by pulling air cover, and essentially gave the Taliban free reign to attack without fear from air strikes. Even worse is the timeline of the pull out. A proper military withdrawal usually takes up to 2 years. It is impossible to do it in 4-5 months! Trump negotiated with farmers and religious zealots that live in the dirt and he got played like a motherfucker. He's literally the biggest buffoon who has ever stepped into the white house.

This a review of the withdrawal from a very pro biden source

And even other libs do not see it as kindly as you do

 

[Lesh]

Not really, nobody actually paid it, there were so many tax loopholes. We have simplified the tax code since then

It was the tax rate jackass

 

[struth]

It was the tax rate jackass

what's the point in having it, if nobody paid it cause of all the loopholes? All it did was make Accountants rich. Is that your goal?

Myth 4: “Those Old 91% Tax Rates Raised Large Tax Revenues”​

Progressives—and even many nonprogressives—regularly assert that mid-twentieth-century income-tax rates exceeding 90% were able to raise substantial revenues without damaging the broader economy. But reductions to these sky-high tax brackets led to more income-tax revenue because wealthy taxpayers were shielded from those exorbitant marginal tax brackets through concurrent tax expenditures and extremely high tax-bracket thresholds.

Figure 3 shows that the 1950s era of 91% top income-tax rates produced only 7.2% of GDP in income-tax revenues. As the top tax bracket fell to 70% in the 1960s and 1970s, income-tax revenues rose to 7.6% and then 7.9% of GDP, respectively. Following dramatic reductions of the top income-tax rates beginning in 1981, federal income-tax revenues have averaged 8.1% of GDP.

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

[12]
'

10 Common Tax Myths, Debunked

The 16th Amendment permitting Congress to impose an income tax, was ratified and became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1913. See tax myths.

taxfoundation.org

While marginal income tax rates have come down from their highs of 91 and 92 percent in the 1950s, changes in the tax base—how much and what types of income are subject to the tax—mean the effective tax rates on the wealthy—the rates they actually pay—haven’t changed nearly as much.

In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190131112443/York_1_31_19.png
How could it be that a top marginal income tax rate over 90 percent resulted in an average income tax of only 21.0 percent during the 1950s? There are at least three reasons:

1. The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (about $2 million in today’s dollars). That means fewer than 10,000 households would have had enough income to fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with!
2. Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
3. Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down.

 

[Lesh]

what's the point in having it, if nobody paid it cause of all the loopholes? All it did was make Accountants rich. Is that your goal?

Myth 4: “Those Old 91% Tax Rates Raised Large Tax Revenues”​

Progressives—and even many nonprogressives—regularly assert that mid-twentieth-century income-tax rates exceeding 90% were able to raise substantial revenues without damaging the broader economy. But reductions to these sky-high tax brackets led to more income-tax revenue because wealthy taxpayers were shielded from those exorbitant marginal tax brackets through concurrent tax expenditures and extremely high tax-bracket thresholds.

Figure 3 shows that the 1950s era of 91% top income-tax rates produced only 7.2% of GDP in income-tax revenues. As the top tax bracket fell to 70% in the 1960s and 1970s, income-tax revenues rose to 7.6% and then 7.9% of GDP, respectively. Following dramatic reductions of the top income-tax rates beginning in 1981, federal income-tax revenues have averaged 8.1% of GDP.

Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths

As Washington prepares for a 2025 dominated by tax policy—led by the issue of whether to extend the expiring 2017 tax cuts—the debate is likely to bring a fresh recirculation of the most common myths about the federal tax system from both the left and the right. On the one hand, the false...

manhattan.institute

[12]
'

10 Common Tax Myths, Debunked

The 16th Amendment permitting Congress to impose an income tax, was ratified and became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1913. See tax myths.

taxfoundation.org

While marginal income tax rates have come down from their highs of 91 and 92 percent in the 1950s, changes in the tax base—how much and what types of income are subject to the tax—mean the effective tax rates on the wealthy—the rates they actually pay—haven’t changed nearly as much.

In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190131112443/York_1_31_19.png
How could it be that a top marginal income tax rate over 90 percent resulted in an average income tax of only 21.0 percent during the 1950s? There are at least three reasons:

1. The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (about $2 million in today’s dollars). That means fewer than 10,000 households would have had enough income to fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with!
2. Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
3. Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down.

What’s your fucking point? The rate was 90% and it was lots of deductions. They lowered the rate of the deductions

 

[struth]

What’s your fucking point? The rate was 90% and it was lots of deductions. They lowered the rate of the deductions

My point is going back to the 1950s tax policy is stupid, and doesn't actually help raise revenue. In fact it lowers it.

Figure 3 shows that the 1950s era of 91% top income-tax rates produced only 7.2% of GDP in income-tax revenues. As the top tax bracket fell to 70% in the 1960s and 1970s, income-tax revenues rose to 7.6% and then 7.9% of GDP, respectively. Following dramatic reductions of the top income-tax rates beginning in 1981, federal income-tax revenues have averaged 8.1% of GDP.

 

[WEATHER53]

Just pointing out how ridiculous you are

And how unable to create original content that you are

 

[Lesh]

My point is going back to the 1950s tax policy is stupid, and doesn't actually help raise revenue. In fact it lowers it.

Figure 3 shows that the 1950s era of 91% top income-tax rates produced only 7.2% of GDP in income-tax revenues. As the top tax bracket fell to 70% in the 1960s and 1970s, income-tax revenues rose to 7.6% and then 7.9% of GDP, respectively. Following dramatic reductions of the top income-tax rates beginning in 1981, federal income-tax revenues have averaged 8.1% of GDP.

You’re arguing with yourself.

You really like the sound of your own voice that much?

 

[WEATHER53]

They no longer allow SS recipients to verify over the phone, tard.

Incorrect
You cannot change the account the deposit goes into over phone
Stop lying

 

[struth]

You’re arguing with yourself.

You really like the sound of your own voice that much?

So you agree that the 1950 policy was stupid...thanks

 

[SmokeALib]

Can’t make this stuff up

Trumps Commerce Secretary says only fraudsters would complain if their Social Security check doesn’t come.
Most would just say….Doesn’t matter, they will send two next month

Shows how clueless they are.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-commerce-secretary-dont-complain-if-we-dont-send-your-social-security-check-236e2702?siteid=msnheadlines

Leftists spread fear. They're running out of rocks to turn over - so this is where they dig.

 

[SmokeALib]

The left is worried about ALL of us getting screwed in our retirement.

You’d be smart to do the same

Bullshit. You fuckin' clowns don't give a shit about nothing but power.

 

[Redfish]

They need to prove they weren’t. They make absurd claims with no proof

horseshit, when you make an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. you libs are the ones making absurd claims with no proof. BTW, set fire to any Teslas today?

 

[Redfish]

And yet back on the late 50s there were many rich folks subject to that tax

in those days there were hundreds of loopholes, no one actually paid those rates.

 

[rightwinger]

Leftists spread fear. They're running of rocks to turn over - so this is where they dig.

The Commerce Sec said it……not leftists

 

[Redfish]

I didn't say ANYTHING about planned benefit cuts as a change to SS Retirement.

I was addressing when the Trust Fund is exhausted and not longer able to supplement current revenues. Once the Trust Fund is exhausted benefits WILL be cut by 25%. Currently that will happen circa 2034. If SS benefits become "tax free" the Trust will be exhausted sooner.

Basic math.

(Assuming no other action to make-up the shortfall between revenues collected and benefits paid.)

WW

it will happen eventually, that is why congress is looking at raising the full benefits age. But no one is even considering reducing current benefits to current retirees.

 

[SmokeALib]

The Commerce Sec said it……not leftists

No he didn't - you did. He was talking about thieves complaining if they didn't get their SS...

 

[rightwinger]

No he didn't - you did. He was talking about thieves complaining if they didn't get their SS...

Try to keep up with the thread