Republicans taking Blame for Shutdown - Polls

[PMZ]

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

It seems like you should return to poverty so you can cut back on taxes. You said that being poor was easy and now you're saying that being wealthy is hard because of taxes. Give yourself a break. Rejoin the poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

Why do we need less spending?

Are the rich not rich enough? Are their private jets and multiple mcmansions, and million dollar cars and $10,000 watches insufficient somehow?

Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.

 

[RKMBrown]

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

It seems like you should return to poverty so you can cut back on taxes. You said that being poor was easy and now you're saying that being wealthy is hard because of taxes. Give yourself a break. Rejoin the poor.

You must have missed my declaration that I already cut way back on my income, and I don't plan on working to bring it back up. Well maybe after Obama leaves, then again maybe not. What's the point of working for more than what you need? Especially when most of the people who appear to have need are really just being lazy. I agree with you, let's all be lazy. Let the kids work. I made enough changes to reduce my federal tax burden from 30+ effective to around 15 effective. Pretty cool. Work less (40hrs) get paid less (than a job that expects 60hrs), don't have to pay top rates +AMT + loose all the college education tax breaks. Sole one of my houses too so less local taxes, and stopped buying new toys each year to less in sales taxes. All in all I don't miss the money at all.

Being somewhat lazier (just a regular job) is is so much easier.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you realize that they were not paying those amounts because of tax deductions?
You are the one that is believing the lefty talking points that the rich actually paid 90% ,70% and 50% when they didn't.

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)


Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.



So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.

Look at how well Hong Kong and Singapore are doing because of their economic freedom of lower taxes and less regulations.
South Africa has discovered the same thing and lowered their taxes and regulations and they are starting to do really well.

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

Why do we need less spending?

Are the rich not rich enough? Are their private jets and multiple mcmansions, and million dollar cars and $10,000 watches insufficient somehow?

Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.

In which case they need to stop bribing politicians to spend so much money on corporate welfare and defense.

 

[RKMBrown]

we need higher taxes.

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.

Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why do we need less spending?

Are the rich not rich enough? Are their private jets and multiple mcmansions, and million dollar cars and $10,000 watches insufficient somehow?

Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.

In which case they need to stop bribing politicians to spend so much money on corporate welfare and defense.

If people want to spend their money legally selling corporate welfare to congress, that's just tough isn't it? It's not your money, you need to get over it. You want to fix it, fix how our voting system works. It's designed to keep two parties fat and happy and in power.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, we need more revenue and less spending. Though one could argue the bottom 51% should have some responsibility above zero for funding their government.

More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.

Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.

Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, the rich do not have enough money to fund the spending of our government.

In which case they need to stop bribing politicians to spend so much money on corporate welfare and defense.

If people want to spend their money legally selling corporate welfare to congress, that's just tough isn't it? It's not your money, you need to get over it. You want to fix it, fix how our voting system works. It's designed to keep two parties fat and happy and in power.

Conflating money with lobbying congress is why the voting system is broken in the first place.

 

[thanatos144]

More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.

Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.

Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.

the 2008 crash was caused by you democrats trying to control housing pricing.

 

[RKMBrown]

In which case they need to stop bribing politicians to spend so much money on corporate welfare and defense.

If people want to spend their money legally selling corporate welfare to congress, that's just tough isn't it? It's not your money, you need to get over it. You want to fix it, fix how our voting system works. It's designed to keep two parties fat and happy and in power.

Conflating money with lobbying congress is why the voting system is broken in the first place.

Other way around.

The voting system is explicitly designed such that only one of two people could possibly win, thus eliminating anyone who is not in the two major parties. Thus virtually eliminating the possibility of a third party candidates. Same issue only worse in primaries, where people of the other party are allowed to jump ship and screw the other party by making sure the candidate selected by your enemy is an ally (read socialist).

All modern voting system allow for people to "rank" who they want to win.

What "group" are you in that is not represented by the lobbying system?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.

Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.

the 2008 crash was caused by you democrats trying to control housing pricing.

And pigs can fly in your fairy tale world!

 

[thanatos144]

Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.

the 2008 crash was caused by you democrats trying to control housing pricing.

And pigs can fly in your fairy tale world!

Color me shocked a demoKKKrat refuses to acknowledge fact.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If people want to spend their money legally selling corporate welfare to congress, that's just tough isn't it? It's not your money, you need to get over it. You want to fix it, fix how our voting system works. It's designed to keep two parties fat and happy and in power.

Conflating money with lobbying congress is why the voting system is broken in the first place.

Other way around.

The voting system is explicitly designed such that only one of two people could possibly win, thus eliminating anyone who is not in the two major parties. Thus virtually eliminating the possibility of a third party candidates. Same issue only worse in primaries, where people of the other party are allowed to jump ship and screw the other party by making sure the candidate selected by your enemy is an ally (read socialist).

All modern voting system allow for people to "rank" who they want to win.

What "group" are you in that is not represented by the lobbying system?

I am an Independent. The problem is allowing whomever can be bribed with the most "campaign contributions" "wins". Time to outlaw all campaign contributions and give all candidates who can come up with sufficient signatures on a petition the exact same funding. No other funds from any source allowed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

the 2008 crash was caused by you democrats trying to control housing pricing.

And pigs can fly in your fairy tale world!

Color me shocked a demoKKKrat refuses to acknowledge fact.

Three fallacies in a single sentence. Want to try for 4?

 

[thanatos144]

And pigs can fly in your fairy tale world!

Color me shocked a demoKKKrat refuses to acknowledge fact.

Three fallacies in a single sentence. Want to try for 4?

Trying to dodge the truth ?

 

[RKMBrown]

Conflating money with lobbying congress is why the voting system is broken in the first place.

Other way around.

The voting system is explicitly designed such that only one of two people could possibly win, thus eliminating anyone who is not in the two major parties. Thus virtually eliminating the possibility of a third party candidates. Same issue only worse in primaries, where people of the other party are allowed to jump ship and screw the other party by making sure the candidate selected by your enemy is an ally (read socialist).

All modern voting system allow for people to "rank" who they want to win.

What "group" are you in that is not represented by the lobbying system?

I am an Independent. The problem is allowing whomever can be bribed with the most "campaign contributions" "wins". Time to outlaw all campaign contributions and give all candidates who can come up with sufficient signatures on a petition the exact same funding. No other funds from any source allowed.

Your accusations have no merit, you might as well be accusing Bush of blowing up the twin towers. How many signatures is "sufficient" and how would they go about getting them? With money from bribed contributions?

 

[RKMBrown]

More revenue from whom exactly? The bottom 51% can't afford to pay higher taxes because they can barely make ends meet as it is and FYI they do pay FICA and Medicare taxes.

Fine. By your measure if we eliminate FICA and Medicare the 51% could afford taxes. Put half the money they are paying now (the company %), into an interest bearing account (401k) and use the other half for taxes. There you go. Use the same amount of money more efficiently, and voila problem solved.

Ask anyone whose 401k was hurt by the 2008 economic collapse if they want to risk entrusting half of their social security to the Wall St casino and you won't find many takers. That isn't using "money more efficiently". It is like betting with it at a Vega casino with even worse odds against you. But thanks for letting us know that you don't have any real answers as to where this additional revenue is supposed to come from.

Uhm.. hello McFly... hello!!! 1) Stocks are not the only type of investment for 401k savings. 2) The only people who lost out during the 2008 crash were the dolts that sold out at the bottom.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Other way around.

The voting system is explicitly designed such that only one of two people could possibly win, thus eliminating anyone who is not in the two major parties. Thus virtually eliminating the possibility of a third party candidates. Same issue only worse in primaries, where people of the other party are allowed to jump ship and screw the other party by making sure the candidate selected by your enemy is an ally (read socialist).

All modern voting system allow for people to "rank" who they want to win.

What "group" are you in that is not represented by the lobbying system?

I am an Independent. The problem is allowing whomever can be bribed with the most "campaign contributions" "wins". Time to outlaw all campaign contributions and give all candidates who can come up with sufficient signatures on a petition the exact same funding. No other funds from any source allowed.

Your accusations have no merit, you might as well be accusing Bush of blowing up the twin towers. How many signatures is "sufficient" and how would they go about getting them? With money from bribed contributions?

The concept of being an independent and having honest and open elections seems to be beyond your partisan grasp. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Color me shocked a demoKKKrat refuses to acknowledge fact.

Three fallacies in a single sentence. Want to try for 4?

Trying to dodge the truth ?

Ironic!