Top tax rates were at 70% when Microsoft and Apple were founded

[ilia25]

The bottom line fool is that unless private sector employment expodes, and that is soon, the worlds financial markets are going to punish the United States.

Of all BS in your post this is the funniest by far. If "worlds financial markets" are ready to punish the US, why haven't they already? What are they waiting for -- fiscal cliff?

 

[ilia25]

The market doesn't redistribute jack.

Of course it does, you silly thing!

How else do you think Bill Gates had "earned" his billions -- by working 40,000 hours per week?

He earned it because every dime he received was paid to him by someone voluntarily

That "volutarrily" is a big BS. Nobody wants to part with their hard earned dollars! They do it because they would be worse off if they don't.

This is true whether you are paying Bill Gates, or the government, or a highway robber. And it always up to the people to decide who has got to keep what they "earned" and how much of it. And those decisions are not arbitrary only because the people themselves benefit from stable rules -- but the rules are set by the people.

But there is no God given, or morally mandated right to keep what money you have "earned".

 

[ba1614]

Of course it does, you silly thing!

How else do you think Bill Gates had "earned" his billions -- by working 40,000 hours per week?

He earned it because every dime he received was paid to him by someone voluntarily

That "volutarrily" is a big BS. Nobody wants to part with their hard earned dollars! They do it because they would be worse off if they don't.

This is true whether you are paying Bill Gates, or the government, or a highway robber. And it always up to the people to decide who has got to keep what they "earned" and how much of it. And those decisions are not arbitrary only because the people themselves benefit from stable rules -- but the rules are set by the people.

But there is no God given, or morally mandated right to keep what money you have "earned".

"
But there is no God given, or morally mandated right to keep what money you have "earned"."

oh my ******* god, are you serious? and the government has that god given and moral right to confiscate what I have "earned", even if they show no regard for the hard earned taxpayer dollars at all?

Well, **** YOU, I married a Dutch accountant for more than her cookin'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's actually a good point. But we should also remember that, if necessary, the federal budget can run huge deficits for years in difficult times and still enjoy ultra-low rates. That is not true for the state and local budgets.

So added volatility might not be as destabilizing at the federal level, as it was in California.



Well, doubling that figure would go a long way toward a sustainable budget.



Most of it is cyclical -- i.e. it will go away once the economy recovers completely (already it came down quite a bit after it has peaked at 1.6 trillions in 2009). BTW, should we go over the fiscal cliff, it will cut the deficit by half.



No, that's the point -- they should be funded more by the rich, and less so by the middle class.

They're unsustainable, unless the middle class kicks in more money.

If that is true, it makes an even more compelling case for rising taxes on the rich.

Yes, tax the rish and the middle class. And cut benefits.

Pretty soon we'll stop adding $1 trillion a year to the deficit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess they forgot to tell Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that high tax rates kill incentives to innovate.

Do you want to PROVIDE a link to that LIE---

The top tax rate during the Clinton administration was 39.6%

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

 

[ilia25]

Do you want to PROVIDE a link to that LIE---

The top tax rate during the Clinton administration was 39.6%

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you confiscated all the money from all the wealthy people in the U.S. it would run the Federal Government for 94 days.

Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

And if you are math challenged -- it means the exact % of income paid in taxes depends on the exact size of the income, even for billionaires.

 

[Koios]

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000

I think that's about right. I would however caution the notion that there's a magic formula, which there is not. Back in the days when our elected representatives considered that paying for stuff was doing the work of the people (post WWII), including Republicans, and thus the debt was paid down, they tinkered with nearly every bracket, almost every year, fine tuning revenue targets while not slowing growth. It worked, quite well.

So the best answer, in my opinon, is of course raise it; we need more revenue if we hope to pay off the Trickledown/Supplyside debt in a post-Failed Rightwing Policies era. But then see what the effect is. If revenue is not sufficient, and growth continues upwardly, raise some or all of the brackets some more, until we reach a point of diminsihing return. Get 'er done

 

[tooAlive]

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000

I think that's about right. I would however caution the notion that there's a magic formula, which there is not. Back in the days when our elected representatives considered that paying for stuff was doing the work of the people (post WWII), including Republicans, and thus the debt was paid down, they tinkered with nearly every bracket, almost every year, fine tuning revenue targets while not slowing growth. It worked, quite well.

So the best answer, in my opinon, is of course raise it; we need more revenue if we hope to pay off the Trickledown/Supplyside debt in a post-Failed Rightwing Policies era. But then see what the effect is. If revenue is not sufficient, and growth continues upwardly, raise some or all of the brackets some more, until we reach a point of diminsihing return. Get 'er done

How about the government just cuts it's spending?

 

[ilia25]

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000

I think that's about right. I would however caution the notion that there's a magic formula, which there is not. Back in the days when our elected representatives considered that paying for stuff was doing the work of the people (post WWII), including Republicans, and thus the debt was paid down, they tinkered with nearly every bracket, almost every year, fine tuning revenue targets while not slowing growth. It worked, quite well.

So the best answer, in my opinon, is of course raise it; we need more revenue if we hope to pay off the Trickledown/Supplyside debt in a post-Failed Rightwing Policies era. But then see what the effect is. If revenue is not sufficient, and growth continues upwardly, raise some or all of the brackets some more, until we reach a point of diminsihing return. Get 'er done

Sure, that was more like an example of what should be considered fair taxes. It would benefit from adjustments once the results are in.

 

[Koios]

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000

I think that's about right. I would however caution the notion that there's a magic formula, which there is not. Back in the days when our elected representatives considered that paying for stuff was doing the work of the people (post WWII), including Republicans, and thus the debt was paid down, they tinkered with nearly every bracket, almost every year, fine tuning revenue targets while not slowing growth. It worked, quite well.

So the best answer, in my opinon, is of course raise it; we need more revenue if we hope to pay off the Trickledown/Supplyside debt in a post-Failed Rightwing Policies era. But then see what the effect is. If revenue is not sufficient, and growth continues upwardly, raise some or all of the brackets some more, until we reach a point of diminsihing return. Get 'er done

How about the government just cuts it's spending?

That has a point of diminishing return as well. So cuts too should be reviewed for true savings if any.

 

[bripat9643]

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

You still haven't explained why that's "fair."

 

[ba1614]

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

You still haven't explained why that's "fair."

I know I myself would stop putting money at the books at $200 000, or I'd get awful creative. **** them and that idea of "fair".

 

[bripat9643]

That has a point of diminishing return as well. So cuts too should be reviewed for true savings if any.

How do you figure? If the government cuts spending by 40% the deficit goes to zero. Every dollar spending is cut means a dollar reduction in the deficit. There are no "diminishing returns" from spending cuts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

And if you are math challenged -- it means the exact % of income paid in taxes depends on the exact size of the income, even for billionaires.

No, I don't want to know what rate you'd like them to pay.
I want to know what percentage of all income taxes collected by the Federal government should be paid by the rich. To meet your definition of fair.

 

[Koios]

That has a point of diminishing return as well. So cuts too should be reviewed for true savings if any.

How do you figure? If the government cuts spending by 40% the deficit goes to zero. Every dollar spending is cut means a dollar reduction in the deficit. There are no "diminishing returns" from spending cuts.

Not always. Defund criminal justice and what's the cost in crime?

Take kids off of health programs, what's the cost in emergency care?

Defund the military, and what's the cost in unemployment at military contractors, base communities, and the crime from the rising poverty when military enlisted are dumped into the street?

I could go on and on. So a cut that saves a billion only to have an unforeseen cost that's greater needs to be fixed. Don't just do it. Do it and see if it saves anything.

 

[ilia25]

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000

I think that's about right. I would however caution the notion that there's a magic formula, which there is not. Back in the days when our elected representatives considered that paying for stuff was doing the work of the people (post WWII), including Republicans, and thus the debt was paid down, they tinkered with nearly every bracket, almost every year, fine tuning revenue targets while not slowing growth. It worked, quite well.

So the best answer, in my opinon, is of course raise it; we need more revenue if we hope to pay off the Trickledown/Supplyside debt in a post-Failed Rightwing Policies era. But then see what the effect is. If revenue is not sufficient, and growth continues upwardly, raise some or all of the brackets some more, until we reach a point of diminsihing return. Get 'er done

How about the government just cuts it's spending?

And you want the government to cut spending on what exactly?..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm still waiting for a definition of the term "fair share"

Fair share isn't the government taking 70% of anything.

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary? You think his work week is 100 times longer? You think that him taking home 40 times the average salary is not a fair compensation for his troubles?

What's fair about a guy taking 100 times the average salary?

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[gwennie]

This thread is an exhibition of Republican brains -- that is how dumb a person has to be to remain a conservative.

This particular specimen truly believes that Apple and Microsoft were founded during Clinton years!

BTW, since many here are questioning the 70% claim:
Income tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nobody expects the rich to finance the government on their own. The point is that they have to pay their fair share.

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

And if you are math challenged -- it means the exact % of income paid in taxes depends on the exact size of the income, even for billionaires.

The govt taking away 70% of anyone's income is absolutely evil.....taking 50% of someone's income is insane.....and taking away 25% of someone's income is beyond ridiculousness. Forcing people to pay an outrageous amount of taxes to the govt is robbery, plain and simple. Most people can't afford to miss 25% of their income, much less 50-70% of their income. Just because someone makes a huge amount of money doesn't mean they owe it to other people who refuse to work or otherwise be responsible with their lives. The govt has proven time and again....BOTH sides.....that they are corrupt and incompetent when it comes to managing OUR money. They pay off their campaign donors, their Wall Street bankers, and feed their pet projects. To say it's just liberals or conservatives who are piss poor at managing our money is missing the whole picture. But to also say that the working class....no matter how much money they make.....MUST pay more than 20% of their income, no matter where it comes from, to the corrupt and incompetent govt is beyond any sense of reason and responsibility. The only people who seem to be insistent on these tax rates are those who don't pay them. But if you feel that 70% is a reasonable tax amount, then by all means write the IRS a check in April 2013 for 70% of your income and I'm fine with that.

 

[ilia25]

No, I don't want to know what rate you'd like them to pay.
I want to know what percentage of all income taxes collected by the Federal government should be paid by the rich. To meet your definition of fair.

Why would I care about that number? Whatever 70% top rate generates is fine.

 

[Koios]

Fair share? That's funny.

What % of total income tax revenues should the rich pay, to be fair?

70% highest bracket starting at $500,000. Plus 50% bracket from $200,000 to $500,000. No changes in brackets under $200,000.

And if you are math challenged -- it means the exact % of income paid in taxes depends on the exact size of the income, even for billionaires.

The govt taking away 70% of anyone's income is absolutely evil.....taking 50% of someone's income is insane.....and taking away 25% of someone's income is beyond ridiculousness. Forcing people to pay an outrageous amount of taxes to the govt is robbery, plain and simple. Most people can't afford to miss 25% of their income, much less 50-70% of their income. Just because someone makes a huge amount of money doesn't mean they owe it to other people who refuse to work or otherwise be responsible with their lives. The govt has proven time and again....BOTH sides.....that they are corrupt and incompetent when it comes to managing OUR money. They pay off their campaign donors, their Wall Street bankers, and feed their pet projects. To say it's just liberals or conservatives who are piss poor at managing our money is missing the whole picture. But to also say that the working class....no matter how much money they make.....MUST pay more than 20% of their income, no matter where it comes from, to the corrupt and incompetent govt is beyond any sense of reason and responsibility. The only people who seem to be insistent on these tax rates are those who don't pay them. But if you feel that 70% is a reasonable tax amount, then by all means write the IRS a check in April 2013 for 70% of your income and I'm fine with that.

It's progressive. A top rated of 70 percent has an effective rate that's much lower, typically.

Plus the money that's taxed is less beneficial to the economy, since it's money at lower monetary velocity points. Money that will be spent is far less taxed.