Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Harpy Eagle]

So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?

Sorry, but that's pure insanity.

They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

 

[bripat9643]

So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?

Sorry, but that's pure insanity.

They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Politicians who are eager to raise taxes are never going to cut spending. Congress spends every dollar of added revenue and then three dollars more.

Yes it is immoral, but it's not my fault. I didn't create this system, and I don't support it. The only way to end deficit spending is to end democracy. Deficit spending an inherent feature of democracy. All democracies eventually swirl down the toilet bowl, and we are watching this one do that now.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

But I told you after the China news came out the markets would flourish. You said no.

I said no such thing, this was the obvious reaction to an agreement...the problem lies in that so far the agreement is nothing more than a reset to two years ago...thus we had two years of wasted growth for no reason.

Ummm...go back. You did. You said you wanted to see at least 1%. How about now?

what the hell are you talking about?

You said unless you saw 1% growth it was a nothing burger. That day the growth was not great. I said Give it time. You posted your usual childish emojis and look at it Now. I was Right again and you were wrong. Seems like a pattern is developing.



Watch this brief video. It’s pretty good.

You put way too much emphasis on one day. that is not how investing works. You should know this

That was what I told you!!!! I said give it a month

 

[OKTexas]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

You can’t be more wrong.

America used to tax the rich at a much higher rate than we do now.

In fact America became a superpower when our highest tax rate was around 90%. Our jobs stayed here in America & business didn’t have the huge loopholes they have now.

That all changed in the Reagan years when he slashed taxes for the rich & business.

Do you make more than 50 million in a year or have more than 50 million in assets? If not you have nothing to worry about. This won’t effect you at all. Those who do have that type of wealth can kick in 2 pennies per dollar to help our nation.

Yeah, that's what they said about the federal income tax, as time went on more and more people had to pay. This will be no different, once the bureaucrats get their hands on a revenue stream, they never let it go. And it's never enough.

.

 

[skews13]

Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.

Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.

What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.

That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.

And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.

Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.

They have been hijacked.

Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.

The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

 

[22lcidw]

So, why "funny" for the OP Gator?

The idea that the "experiment called America" would be over by higher tax rate on the upper level.

Seems they were higher once and it did not end America...

It depends on who was paying what. So a working class bus driver in 1950 was paying 90% by your calculations.

 

[Nostra]

Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.

Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.

What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.

That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.

And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.

Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.

They have been hijacked.

Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.

The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

Your unhinged rant was cute.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, why "funny" for the OP Gator?

The idea that the "experiment called America" would be over by higher tax rate on the upper level.

Seems they were higher once and it did not end America...

It depends on who was paying what. So a working class bus driver in 1950 was paying 90% by your calculations.

Was a working class bus driver in 1950s in the top income bracket? Seems unlikely.

 

[Rye Catcher]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Good grief. We have had an income tax which has always increased the tax in gradations for income earned.

2019-2020 Tax Brackets | Bankrate

The highest tax in 1960 was 91% of earned income $400,000 and above. The tax in 2020's highest earners income is 37% for all dollars of $500,301. Look at the historical details of the Tax Fraud signed by trump and who benefits.

What was the effective tax rate in 1960?

What is $400,000 in today's dollars?

Your slight of hand didn't work.

What matters are the percentages, which have changed to the betterment of those with higher earned incomes greater than any in the lower tax brackets. You question matters not, but if you want an answer look it up. Here is a link to 1965:

Calculate the value of $400,000 in 1965. How much is it worth today?

Do you know that the higher percentage applies only to the amount above X?

2019-2020 federal income tax brackets
LIBBY WELLS@EAWELLS77
JANUARY 6, 2020 in TAXES
Advertiser Disclosure
At Bankrate we strive to help you make smarter financial decisions. While we adhere to strict editorial integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners. Here’s an explanation for how we make money.


There are seven tax brackets for most ordinary income: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent and 37 percent. The U.S. has a progressive tax system, which means that as you move up the pay scale, you also move up the tax scale.

You clearly have no clue what an effective tax rate is.

Well, you have no clue or ability to write a civil rebuttal. I do understand how the federal tax works, maybe you believe those in the 37% tax bracket pay 37% on all of their earned income. Or maybe you want to convince others that to be true.

 

[22lcidw]

So, why "funny" for the OP Gator?

The idea that the "experiment called America" would be over by higher tax rate on the upper level.

Seems they were higher once and it did not end America...

It depends on who was paying what. So a working class bus driver in 1950 was paying 90% by your calculations.

Was a working class bus driver in 1950s in the top income bracket? Seems unlikely.

The tax system was way different back then. State, local, city and regional taxes were much much lower as a percentage of income. Other taxes like gasoline, real estate and many others we still have today were the much lower also. Today we have hundreds if not thousands of taxes that nickel and dime people. What were the shelters back then? What were the annual incomes back then of the rich? There was a lot closer relationship in jobs from bottom to top. The social programs were not anywhere like you see them today and yet people survived. The Federal Income Tax was instituted at the same time the Fiat Currency became law in 1913. The tax was supposed to be only against the rich. It started at 3 per cent I believe. Then rocketed up. Different times have different meanings and affordabilities.I know we read about Hollywood people at that time who seemed to have troubles.

 

[Flash]

Yea right. "Lets use the filthy oppressive government to steal money from other people to pay our bills".

Only a greedy envious piece of shit would support government thievery. You know, a Democrat.

 

[bripat9643]

Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.

Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.

What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.

That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.

And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.

Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.

They have been hijacked.

Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.

The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

The Founding Fathers didn't support the income tax, so your entire screed is flushed down the toilet right there.

 

[BluesLegend]

So, how do we convince the people who are now hooked on voting themselves freebies

The typical "Karl Rove voter" is just as eager to get a handout as the Democrat voter who refuses to work.

How do we convince people who never think, never question, and don't have any intelligence????

I don't know....

I think we need a "climate change" type effort...Look, progs have convinced lots of people in the agenda paid for science of climate change, so we need to do that with our budget concerns.

Idiots in government have already borrowed and spent several future generation's money. This spending spree WILL come to an end one way or another. Trump is pursuing the only hope we have left, aggressive economic growth. We are in a debt hole so large now we can't tax or spending cut our way out.

I refuse to believe there isn't a solution...

There is a solution, hold our elected officials accountable for their spending, keep voting them out till someone cuts spending

Spending hasn't been cut since the late 1950's so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our taxation system should NOT be used for democrats' social justice schemes. That is not what it is all about, and that is not what America is all about.

Wrong. That is exactly what taxes are for, and exactly what America is about.

What our taxes are not for is subsidies to oil companies, and defense contractors.

That is not what our taxes are for, or what America is about.

And just so you know, the general welfare of the people is not a scheme. Taking away the general welfare of the people to enrich a few is a scheme.

Wrong. Taxes are to fund the very few things the govt is allowed to do by the Constitution.

They have been hijacked.

Wrong again. The founders did not believe in a standing army. To them that was a form of tyranny. The founders would never have supported or authorized defense spending as we are today. The Constitution very specifically lays out the role for Congress to collect and lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the people. General welfare doesn’t mean multi billion dollar subsidies For Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Lockheed Martin, or Northrop Grumman. But then again Dwight Eisenhower warned of this as did FDR before him. The latter who was popularly elected four times by the people for a reason. Which wasnt tax cuts for the rich, bank deregulation’s, or corporate subsidies.

The tax policy of the United States that supported the largest middle class expanse occurred between 1945-1980. Whatever the tax policy and regulatory policy was then, is what it needs to be returned to now. The policies that were enacted after that is what had led to the debt, and inequality we have today. Voo Doo economics I believe they were referred to by a modern era President. What is unfondly known today as supply side trickle down economics. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people.

Then get your people elected, raise taxes to what they were in the 50's, and see what happens to jobs and the economy. I think you'll be surprised. After all, DumBama had the House and Senate. Why didn't he raise taxes that high?

The founders wrote they did not want a standing army because they could never imagine the equipment, training, technology that it takes to defend the country today. If they could come back to life, know what our potential enemies have, do you think they would have kept that idea?

Correct, the founders didn't mean the general welfare to be bailouts and subsidies. But they also didn't mean it for food stamps, HUD, TANF, Planned Parenthood support, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIPs and the other eighty plus social programs we have today. Those were the born from the Great Society. General Welfare meant for those items listed in the Constitution, not what's in the Democrat playbook.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Thinking of our 23 trillion dollar debt, imagine what that would be today if we only listened to Madison back then.

 

[Nostra]

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Good grief. We have had an income tax which has always increased the tax in gradations for income earned.

2019-2020 Tax Brackets | Bankrate

The highest tax in 1960 was 91% of earned income $400,000 and above. The tax in 2020's highest earners income is 37% for all dollars of $500,301. Look at the historical details of the Tax Fraud signed by trump and who benefits.

What was the effective tax rate in 1960?

What is $400,000 in today's dollars?

Your slight of hand didn't work.

What matters are the percentages, which have changed to the betterment of those with higher earned incomes greater than any in the lower tax brackets. You question matters not, but if you want an answer look it up. Here is a link to 1965:

Calculate the value of $400,000 in 1965. How much is it worth today?

Do you know that the higher percentage applies only to the amount above X?

2019-2020 federal income tax brackets
LIBBY WELLS@EAWELLS77
JANUARY 6, 2020 in TAXES
Advertiser Disclosure
At Bankrate we strive to help you make smarter financial decisions. While we adhere to strict editorial integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners. Here’s an explanation for how we make money.


There are seven tax brackets for most ordinary income: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent and 37 percent. The U.S. has a progressive tax system, which means that as you move up the pay scale, you also move up the tax scale.

You clearly have no clue what an effective tax rate is.

Well, you have no clue or ability to write a civil rebuttal. I do understand how the federal tax works, maybe you believe those in the 37% tax bracket pay 37% on all of their earned income. Or maybe you want to convince others that to be true.

I never said anything remotely close to that.

Keep flailing.

 

[Dick Foster]

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

snip

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll

If this is true, then the experiment called the United States of America as we know it is done....

Well I sure as hell ain't one of them. My guess is they restricted their polling to college campuses or some silly shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?

Sorry, but that's pure insanity.

They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

 

[Nostra]

Here is one of the dishonest questions from the “Poll”:

Asked in the poll if “the very rich should be allowed to keep the money they have, even if that means increasing inequality,” 54% of respondents disagreed.


Notice the BS qualifier at the end? Loaded question.

A better question would be:

“ Do you think successful people should able to keep the money they have since it has already been Taxed”?

The results would be much different.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The typical "Karl Rove voter" is just as eager to get a handout as the Democrat voter who refuses to work.

How do we convince people who never think, never question, and don't have any intelligence????

I don't know....

I think we need a "climate change" type effort...Look, progs have convinced lots of people in the agenda paid for science of climate change, so we need to do that with our budget concerns.

Idiots in government have already borrowed and spent several future generation's money. This spending spree WILL come to an end one way or another. Trump is pursuing the only hope we have left, aggressive economic growth. We are in a debt hole so large now we can't tax or spending cut our way out.

I refuse to believe there isn't a solution...

There is a solution, hold our elected officials accountable for their spending, keep voting them out till someone cuts spending

Spending hasn't been cut since the late 1950's so.

Why would it be, we keep voting the same people in to office no matter how much they spend and add to the debt

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So your solution is to give Congress a blank check?

Sorry, but that's pure insanity.

They already have one. Nobody will vote them out for spending too much or adding too much to the debt. How is that not a blank check.

ROFL! It's pointless to argue with you about this issue.

You are right it is. As long as you keep voting for the people adding to the debt and increasing spending you have no leg to stand on.

You claim one thing and do another.

I say it is immoral to keep adding to the debt and making future generations pay for it...you say "**** em if they cannot take a joke".

Is it the politicians fault or ours? I'll quite economist Dr. Walter E Williams:

"I'm going to run for a federal political office. My platform will be that I will bring nothing back to our state. I will vote every spending bill down. Would you vote for me?"

It is 100% our fault. We vote them into office and we allow them to do this.