Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seems to me that you are very angry with having to pay a lot in taxes.. Want to know a way to not pay so much in taxes? Legally...The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Screw your double tax bullshit. Hell, everybody gets double taxed. I bought a Zaxby's meal today. Dammit, I had to pay sales tax and I already paid income tax AND social security tax on the freaking money I gave them. Hell, I got TRIPLE taxed. Buy a car, you pay sales tax even though you paid tax on the money you bought the car with. Then you go to get the license plate and damn, you get taxed again. Safety inspection, shit, another tax. What is that, four freakin times now you got taxed on the same money. So your double tax argument on dividends is shit.
Sure seemed that you were angry about paying taxes. I too am angry about paying taxes, but again, I dont have to pay as much as a pensioner does, because the liberal elite's who made the loopholes, I too learned how to use those loopholes. Dont hate me for who I am, hate me because I too can play the liberal game and get very rich...Seems to me that you are very angry with having to pay a lot in taxes.. Want to know a way to not pay so much in taxes? Legally...The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Screw your double tax bullshit. Hell, everybody gets double taxed. I bought a Zaxby's meal today. Dammit, I had to pay sales tax and I already paid income tax AND social security tax on the freaking money I gave them. Hell, I got TRIPLE taxed. Buy a car, you pay sales tax even though you paid tax on the money you bought the car with. Then you go to get the license plate and damn, you get taxed again. Safety inspection, shit, another tax. What is that, four freakin times now you got taxed on the same money. So your double tax argument on dividends is shit.
I am not angry about paying taxes. I am angry that some idiot has attempted the foolish double taxation argument. And I sure as hell don't need you to tell me about tax policy, not tax avoidance strategies. I doubt you have even heard of BOSS or Son of BOSS. I doubt you know anything about a charitable remainder trust.
Oh and I am not sorry that you dont want to learn how not to pay as much in taxes, as lets say, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and other tax avoiding liberal elites. You want to be stupid and not uber rich, that is your choice, but shut the fuck up about it, because you are just a petulant whiney bitch...Seems to me that you are very angry with having to pay a lot in taxes.. Want to know a way to not pay so much in taxes? Legally...The money that is given out in Dividends is already taxed, before it goes to the Joe Public. So you want double taxation on the same money? Pandora's box and soon you want have anything left. God you dumbasses never quit....First of all, Buffett is lying his ass off, and playing a verbal shell game with you, on the assumption that you're too stupid to catch on. And congratulations! You proved him right.
Before you rush on to where we assume your parameters are correct, let's explore your assertions.
Hufflepuff is misquoting Buffett. He never said he or his corporation pay less in taxes than his secretary; he said he paid a lower tax rate than she does, knowing that economic morons like you would immediately conflate that to "less taxes".
The fact is that you're basically comparing apples to oranges. Both Buffett and his corporation pay DIFFERENT taxes than his secretary does. She gets a salary, and pays income tax on it as earned income. Buffett very deliberately does not draw a salary from his company, because he knows that he would then be subject to the same earned income taxes that his employees are, except at MUCH higher rates than they are. Instead, he derives his money from his investments, which are capital gains and taxed as such. The same is true for his company. But because his investment assets and those of his company are worth FAR more than his secretary's salary, they both pay vastly more money in taxes than she does.
I will be happy to agree that the cumulative taxes levied on those who receive salaries are excessive; it does not follow, however, that the solution is to raise capital gains taxes to match the percentage level created by the myriad taxes draining an individual's salary. I can see why this would help politicians and bureaucrats who crave more and more of other people's money to spend, but I can't imagine how this does anything for the individual wage earners. Is it going to increase the secretary's take-home pay if her employer shells more money out to the government? Or is it just going to retard the economic growth of the company, making it less likely that she gets raises and other benefits? Probably doesn't affect Buffett's secretary that directly, since she's a very specialized, highly-trained, and highly-placed employee who is likely to be among the last hit by any economic hardships encountered by the corporation. But it's a very immediate concern to those near the bottom of the corporate ladder.
Also, words like "hoarding" are exactly why your treasured Huff'n'Stuff deserves and receives no respect as a news source. Professional journalists don't use emotionally charged and inaccurate terms like that. Corporations aren't stuffing wads of currency in safes and under the couch cushions in the executive lounge. Much of their retained earnings are actually in motion.
It makes no sense to tax unearned income lower than earned income. I mean look at that damn statement. You pay less in taxes on money YOU DON'T EARN than on money you do. WTF. Stupid.
Here is an example. You are a doctor. You spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on college and medical school. You spent four long years in residency busting your balls. And now you have a thriving practice. The income that practice generates is taxed HIGHER than any income you derive from playing in the stock market. The government is actually ENCOURAGING you to speculate in the stock market rather than expand the business you were trained to do. That is FUBARED. Ronald Reagan said as much and he was right. And look at the wildly fluctuating stock market, that is a direct result of this ignorance along with the corporate tax cut. If you think about it for just one minute you might be able to figure out precisely who this ignorant idea of taxing unearned income lower than earned income helps and I will give you a hint. It is me, not you.
Screw your double tax bullshit. Hell, everybody gets double taxed. I bought a Zaxby's meal today. Dammit, I had to pay sales tax and I already paid income tax AND social security tax on the freaking money I gave them. Hell, I got TRIPLE taxed. Buy a car, you pay sales tax even though you paid tax on the money you bought the car with. Then you go to get the license plate and damn, you get taxed again. Safety inspection, shit, another tax. What is that, four freakin times now you got taxed on the same money. So your double tax argument on dividends is shit.
I am not angry about paying taxes. I am angry that some idiot has attempted the foolish double taxation argument. And I sure as hell don't need you to tell me about tax policy, not tax avoidance strategies. I doubt you have even heard of BOSS or Son of BOSS. I doubt you know anything about a charitable remainder trust.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
How is one underpaid by playing a game they would play anyway even if they weren't getting paid?
Why professional athletes are actually underpaidAnd how many employees does LeBron James have working for him? A CEO may make 2 or 3 million while having to deal with little snot nose bastards like you, having to make decisions that could make or break a business, while LeBron, who left high school to go straight into "basketball"(which was invented by a white guy, is this cultural appropriations by blacks), so not getting a degree, or managing anything other than himself. You libtards are such a predictable dumbass people, who only say and do what your liberal leaders tell you do to. They say "Corporations are Evil" so you hate them even when you friends and neighbors could be working for one. They say profits are "EVIL" so you hate profits, unless it is LeBron James who makes 77 million dollars of profit. You are such a dimwad..$77 million in total income for LeBron James — he of the World Champion Cleveland Cavaliers and arguably the greatest basketball player on the planet — seems like a lot of money for someone who “plays” a game for a living. But as is often the case, things are not what they appear. In reality, James and many other athletes are actually wildly underpaid — specifically when it comes to their on-field salaries.
I am quite sure I am more educated than you. How many people lost their jobs when Lebron went from Cleveland to Miami? It is now how many employees work for Lebron, although I imagine it is quite a few. It is how many employees are dependent upon Lebron. Now I can tell you how many jobs are dependent upon an individual CEO. About one or two, his private secretary. And hell, they probably aren't because if he leaves they will probably stay for the next one.
You are so full of shit. It is the board members who set the CEO's pay, for if the CEO doesnt perform he gets canned, if he produces then he gets paid well. Why is it CEO's are bad guys who have to run a company employing possibly 10's of 1000s of people, yet a movie star(liberal) or pro Athlete, can make the same or even more, and you dont say a fucking word about them? Because you brain dead asshole liberals, only do what your liberal elites tell you to do. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...That' the story line. In reality, CEOs are like kings. They aren't elected to their position, they are appointed. Usually after several years of grueling political warfare, back-stabbing colleagues and gerrymandering the organization. Once in the position, they pretty much get to set their own pay.No. Welfare is when you give something to somebody that they didn't have before. Welfare is not taking less of something that somebody earned.
The point you missed is this: CEO's are paid because of their rare talent and record. Workers can be found virtually anywhere. What are you worth as an employee? The answer is simple. You are only worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do your job on the same quality level. That's what you are worth.
So if employers can find an equal CEO willing to work for less money than the current CEO they have, they will do exactly that. The problem however is that these people are not like floor sweepers which is a job anybody can do. CEO's do a job very few of us can do. From there, it's a supply and demand industry just like it is for any other worker in America.
That's why workers pay increased much less than CEO pay.
Who can change the pay? The board of directors of course, but who makes up most boards? Largely still CEOs (and former CEOs). It doesn't do any board member's reputation any good with his peers to try and cut CEO pay. You certainly don't want your objection to "Joe's" pay coming up when its time to set your pay.
The people most directly effected is not the public but the shareholders. However, thanks to corporation law in states like Delaware where so many big corporations incorporate, shareholders that are not on the board have little if any input.
So don't think for a moment that hiring CEO's is anything like hiring other employees. There is of course exceptions, usually in smaller businesses where the CEO actually understands the business and often has been active in managing the business.
CEO's in our largest corporation often have no experience in managing the business. They manage the books, know little about products, or the people that create them. They are money people.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money
Professional athletes are underpaid because they labor in a monopsony situation. Everyone with any type of formal economic training knows this. While CEO's are overpaid because of stock options, corporate buybacks, and a board that does little more than rubber stamp any executive compensation packages.
How is one underpaid by playing a game they would play anyway even if they weren't getting paid?
Why professional athletes are actually underpaid
This is the unfairness of the tax code. Your real income is $470,000 a year. Years ago Wife sold her business and we had to pay that plus our incomes as earned income. What's the fucking difference is that rich men write the tax laws.
Tax everything at 10% is fair for all.
If it was just Federal taxes it would only be 17% of GDP. Adding in the other taxes it comes out to only 22% of GDP. There are 197 countries in the world. With total taxes only being 22% of GDP, there are 134 countries around the world that have higher taxes as a percentage of GDP.
Of all the countries in the world, the United States has one of the lowest tax rates. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, their collected taxes per year amount to 39.3% of their annual GDP.
Workers work just as hard today as they did 20 years ago or 40 years ago, yet the CEO's are making 50 times what they did back in 1980. Why is that?
Also, economic growth since the year 2000 has averaged an anemic 1.9% per year in terms or real GDP growth. Back in the 1960s when you did not have any robots, gadgets or other technology, growth averaged 5.3%.
With all this technology growth has slowed to the lowest levels since World War II. The worker is making the same amount of money as he did in 1980 after adjusting for inflation. The CEO makes 50 times what he made in 1980. This is what happens when capitalism is not properly regulated by government. Monopolies occur, competition dry's up, growth slows and stagnates, quality declines, while the Rich live high off the hog.
Uh huh, yeah, THAT'S the problem. I think you're a gullible buffoon because you're just too damned smart for me, and I laugh at Huffandpuff because they're so far beyond me.
You go with that, Sparky.
Well that seems the way to go since the article mentioned several reasons that corporate taxes were too low. You cannot refute those reasons by condemning the source.
Yeah, actually I can, when the so-called source has never had even a tinge of respectability or reliability as a real news source. "But it sounds plausible!" does not require me to suddenly take a tabloid trash site seriously.
If YOU would like to present those "reasons" and make arguments for them, I will be glad to discuss them with you. But if you are going to present Huff'n'Stuff, then I'm going to respond to THAT, and my response is, "Read a real news source, gullible tool."
Great, although I am not holding my breath. But let's give it a shot. First reason.
Firstly, they are doing little to improve our economy to warrant such favorable treatment. As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary. Yet corporations have record profits, and hirings are at multiple year lows, while hoarding a record $2.3 trillion in cash.
What are corporations doing to deserve favorable tax treatment? Hirings at multi year lows, hoarding cash, corporate stock buybacks and inflated executive compensation. I mean the corporate stock buybacks are a glaring case in point. By definition a company buys back it's stock when it has no acceptable capital investments to make. That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash. They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings. So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut? Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments. It is like a snowball rolling down hill, the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate and the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
As Buffett said, his corporation pays less in taxes than his Secretary.
If he said that, he lied.
That is why it is distributing it's excess cash to shareholders via a buyback. That is not why an investor buys a stock. That is not what they want the company to do with their cash.
If the alternative is sitting on a pile of cash earning 2%, I'd prefer a buyback.
They want the company to make INVESTMENTS, to grow, to expand their earnings.
I don't want my companies to make stupid investments at inflated prices, just to use up cash.
So if companies did not have capital investments to make why the hell did they need a tax cut?
Because the highest corporate tax rate in the 1st world makes us less competitive.
Worse, a tax cut actually CUTS the number of possibly acceptable investments.
Your moronic claim never fails to make me laugh.
the required IRR of any potential capital investment is higher as the marginal tax rate declines.
I wonder, is that because the after tax profit is higher at a 21% tax rate than at a 35% tax rate?
Well first of all, if you believe corporations are paying the corporate tax rate I got a bridge to sell you. In reality, the EFFECTIVE tax rate on corporate income is much lower than the stated rate. And when comparing our corporate tax rate to other countries you fail to incorporate the VAT that most other countries assess their corporations. So, even before the corporate tax cut we were quite competitive with the effective tax rate right around the average for most industrialized nations and with the advantage of not having a VAT.
But to the corporate buybacks as a sign of a lack of capital investment opportunities. You have utterly failed to refute that argument. And yes, it is true concerning the IRR and the marginal tax rate. The reason is something that you seem to totally ignore, RISK. The reason that there are few acceptable capital investments with low marginal tax rates is that those corporations are actually more risk averse as the corporate tax rate declines. That is because the "cost of loss" is higher the lower the marginal tax rate. If the economy was running "rich", with corporations making massive capital investments and we needed to slow that behavior down, then a cut in corporate tax rates would be justified. But if the economy is stagnant and corporations are sitting on piles of cash the absolute last thing you should do is precisely what we did, cut corporate tax rates. Sure, we got a temporary sugar high but that high is going to evaporate pretty quickly, wait and see.
Yet, overall economic growth has slowed over the last 20 years, yet these people at the top of these companies are still making absurd amounts of money, while the average worker has not seen any increase at all. Its one thing to make more money as a CEO when business is thriving, but that's not the case here. GDP growth is an anemic 1.9% on average since the year 2000. Back in the 1960s when you did not have these massive disparities between what the average worker made and what the CEO made, GDP growth was over 5% EVERY YEAR!
The system now is essentially a welfare program for the rich.
Top federal tax rates were also between 70% and 92% from 1945 to 1980.
So based on that evidence, the top federal tax rate can be increased without hurting economic growth and bring in much needed tax revenue to the government to balance the budget and defend the country.
You didn't provide any evidence.
The rich could fund unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed and still make money;
junk Bonds not junk Laws!
are we not, capitalists on a National basis.
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".
And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".
And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.
Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.
The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".
And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.
Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
And the share of taxes they pay is larger than the share of income they collect.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes.
The Obama argument, "we need to raise tax rates, to be fair, even if it drops revenues collected".
Of course their share of taxes is larger than the share of income they collect. I mean we do have a progressive tax system don't we, at least at the national level. But you miss the point. I would support higher tax rates on the wealthy in order to lower the percentage of taxes they pay. And you should too if spouting those percentages is any part of an argument you make. But the wealthy don't want that any more than they want a hole in the head. They are perfectly content with paying that share of the taxes because, one, they enjoy taking an absurd amount of the total income and two, they are paying less of their income in taxes than they were when they paid less of the total taxes.
Please explain the difference between what you feel they should be paying and what they're actually paying.
Be as specific as you can.
I've already asked that question and got no reply. The top 20% of taxpayers in this country pay over 70% of all collected income taxes. If that's not a fair share, what should their fair share be?
You must not be paying attention. Early on in this thread I admitted that the rich carry too much of the total tax burden. I have never understood why anyone would believe quoting those kind of numbers is any argument against raising taxes. Yes, they pay more than their share of taxes, BECAUSE THEY GARNISH MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF INCOME.
It is like "du huh".
And that is just it. Back when the marginal tax rate was higher, like that seventy percent number, the wealthy carried less of the total tax burden. Why is that? Because those higher taxes encouraged them to invest in PEOPLE, not paper. It encouraged them to INVEST not speculate. And another thing, when those marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in that seventy percent range GDP growth was at or above double digits. Again, why is that? Same answer. Read the link I left about why corporate taxes should be raised. The same thing applies to personal income taxes. And most certainly, capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income.
Raise the corporate tax rate, increase the tax rate on the wealthy, and tax capital gains the same as earned income and I promise you, the wealthy will actually pay less of the total taxes. I know that. They know that. But they will also make less of the total income and that is why they are opposed to such actions.
Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?
