[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Billo_Really]

What is wrong is someone earning money paying taxes on it investing it and then if they make money on that investment paying more then the current rate on Capital gains?

Of course the issue is Democrats feel any money earned belongs to government first.

They're not investing their capital gains savings, they're hoarding it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Average is NOT all Americans.
Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.

There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?

Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.

According to an inflation calculator I used off the internet.....Converter of current to real US dollars | using the GDP deflator.....
1975 $12,000 US Dollars is equivalent to $41,595,78 in 2013 US Dollars.

 

[Billo_Really]

They shouldn't be. They are investment income and that carries RISK.

Tell us please sir how many jobs where you had an income did you have where you worked 40 hours that week and did not know if and when you would get paid?

Real world for those that take the massive risks of the hard earned money they put at risk NEVER KNOWING if they will ever make any money off of their hard earned dollars, ALREADY TAXED ONCE WHEN THEY MADE IT.

We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots. People that work extra hard and save their money to invest are now to be scorned on and punished.

How dare anyone make a profit off of their capital THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON ONCE!!!

We have to punish them and tax them again and again and again each time they make a cent off the capital they invested AFTER THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT ONCE.

Capital gains is income that should be taxed at 25%.

 

[ilia25]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.

I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.

In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.

 

[ilia25]

Average is NOT all Americans.
Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.

There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?

Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.

This is effective tax rate -- i.e. the share of income people making a million a year (adjusted for inflation) would actually pay.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...

BUT....

It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending

That is a recipe for economic disaster.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They shouldn't be. They are investment income and that carries RISK.

Tell us please sir how many jobs where you had an income did you have where you worked 40 hours that week and did not know if and when you would get paid?

Real world for those that take the massive risks of the hard earned money they put at risk NEVER KNOWING if they will ever make any money off of their hard earned dollars, ALREADY TAXED ONCE WHEN THEY MADE IT.

We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots. People that work extra hard and save their money to invest are now to be scorned on and punished.

How dare anyone make a profit off of their capital THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON ONCE!!!

We have to punish them and tax them again and again and again each time they make a cent off the capital they invested AFTER THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT ONCE.

Capital gains is income that should be taxed at 25%.

How did you arrive at that figure? And why?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...

BUT....

It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending

That is a recipe for economic disaster.

Please explain and expound on that answer.

 

[tooAlive]

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.

I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.

In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.

That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.

Your argument is class-warfare mentality at its finest. "He has more, so I automatically have to have less. Take what he has!"

 

[tooAlive]

There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?

Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.

This is effective tax rate -- i.e. the share of income people making a million a year (adjusted for inflation) would actually pay.

Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

Here's a real source, with factual, non-misleading information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

 

[Derideo_Te]

You know nothing about business.
Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
A share of the profits?
That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?

WELL DUH!
That is the first lesson.
Lesson #2.
Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.

Your erroneous assumptions and bigotry against the less fortunate come across loud and clear.

Unlike you I get off my ass and do something for the unfortunate. I work at the local food bank, coached rec kids for 20 years and took many a poor kid home after practice, teach the unfortunate how to read, how to balance a check book, how to budget for food, how to plan a menu, how to teach their kids how to read, how to shop for food with coupons and other budget ideas, how to work on their car, where to go find a trusty mechanic in the area, how to formulate a house budget and many other things.

All you do is sit on your ass, call names and label folks "bigots" because they seek solutions instead of offering nothing other than rank rhetoric like yours.

Your empty boasting impresses no one but yourself just as your erroneous assumptions about those you know nothing about just makes you look foolish.

 

[noose4]

91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.

 

[ilia25]

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.

I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.

In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.

That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.

That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.

 

[ilia25]

Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?

Then what is the right figure?

Here's a real source, with factual, non-misleading information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?

 

[JoeNormal]

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.


CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress

Now tell me how many people actually forked over 91% of any portion of their income to the government.

Also, please find me someone that is willing to work for .10 cents on the dollar. I want to hire them.

First of all, if they were in the 90% range, you couldn't possibly afford them and second, who pays 35% today?

 

[JoeNormal]

Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?

Then what is the right figure?

Here's a real source, with factual, non-misleading information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

Non misleading? Really? The would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?

Sure, I'll explain it to you. As the top rate has gone down, the slack has been made up by lower and middle income earners.

 

[ilia25]

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.


CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress

Now tell me how many people actually forked over 91% of any portion of their income to the government.

No one paid 91% -- but people making over 1 million in today's dollars did pay 66% of their income in taxes.

 

[AmazonTania]

When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.

Fair share is regarding the rate on taxable income.

Capital gains and dividends are taxable income.

That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Billo_Really]

That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.

Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.

In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.