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

[ilia25]

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?

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

 

[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.

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

At the federal level? almost nothing. The federal government shouldn't even be involved in law enforcement. Where does the Constitution authorize that?

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

Again, almost nothing. Kids don't get seriously ill that often.

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?

You didn't even mention the possibility of foreign invasion. It's hysterical the way you look at military spending as a form of welfare.

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.

Please do go on. Your posts are hysterical.

 

[Koios]

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?

At the federal level? almost nothing. The federal government shouldn't even be involved in law enforcement. Where does the Constitution authorize that?



Again, almost nothing. Kids don't get seriously ill that often.

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?

You didn't even mention the possibility of foreign invasion. It's hysterical the way you look at military spending as a form of welfare.

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.

Please do go on. Your posts are hysterical.

How so?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

You still haven't explained why you think the tax rates you propose are fair.

 

[Koios]

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

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

You still haven't explained why you think the tax rates you propose are fair.

It's not about fairness. It's to pay for stuff, including past stuff we borrowed to pay for.

 

[ilia25]

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".

Fortunately, people in real world do not behave like you in your wet dreams.

 

[bripat9643]

You still haven't explained why you think the tax rates you propose are fair.

It's not about fairness. It's to pay for stuff, including past stuff we borrowed to pay for.

ilia25 and Obama and the Dims have been saying it's about "fairness." Furthermore, ilia25 admitted he doesn't care how much revenue it raises. So presumably he would still support it even if it raised zero revenue.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

Fortunately, people in real world do not behave like you in your wet dreams.

When are you going to explain why you think your proposed tax rates are fair?

 

[Koios]

You still haven't explained why you think the tax rates you propose are fair.

It's not about fairness. It's to pay for stuff, including past stuff we borrowed to pay for.

ilia25 and Obama and the Dims have been saying it's about "fairness." Furthermore, ilia25 admitted he doesn't care how much revenue it raises. So presumably he would still support it even if it raised zero revenue.

Then they're being philosophical, which can be just about anything you want it to be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Why would I care about that number?

I want to know when we reach your perfect world.

So why do you keep avoiding the question?

Should the top 1% pay 50% of all income tax?
60%? 70%?

Give me the fair percentage.

 

[ilia25]

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

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

You still haven't explained why you think the tax rates you propose are fair.

Because they make the outcomes more equal w/o having a noticeable impact on the economic growth.

 

[tooAlive]

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.

Whoah, Bripat... Hold on a second there, that's way too much for me to comprehend. Lets go over this slowly.

You're trying to tell me that if we reduce spending, the deficit goes down?

 

[gwennie]

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.

Progressive or not, the govt is completely out of line in forcing people to pay huge tax percentages. Those in Congress and the WH should be forced to learn again how to live on about $40k/year and pay all their bills....groceries, mortgage, utilities, car payment, taxes, insurances, out of pocket medical care, gas for the car, etc...and then have someone take 25% of their income away from them and watch strangers do shit with their money that they'd never approve of and they personally never receive any benefit from. If they were forced to do this, we would see THE END of anyone demanding tax rates of 25% or more.

 

[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.

Why would I care about that number?

I want to know when we reach your perfect world.

So why do you keep avoiding the question?

I answered your question -- I don't care. Just as I don't care what will be the color of John Boehner tie the next time I see him on TV. My world would not become any more or less perfect because of it.

 

[tooAlive]

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

So what if it doesn't kill them??

They earned their money!

Leaving them with 5 instead of 10 constitutes as stealing! My goodness. It amazes me that there are people that actually believe this is fair.

Wow. I don't care if he makes 10 billion. Taking 5 billion just because you can and he probably doesn't really need it is just morally wrong. Jeez.. Move to Cuba for a few years.

 

[ilia25]

It's not about fairness. It's to pay for stuff, including past stuff we borrowed to pay for.

ilia25 and Obama and the Dims have been saying it's about "fairness." Furthermore, ilia25 admitted he doesn't care how much revenue it raises. So presumably he would still support it even if it raised zero revenue.

Then they're being philosophical, which can be just about anything you want it to be.

I beg to differ, the question of fairness goes beyond abstract philosophy

I think it is unfair when one person makes in a day what other make in a year while working more or less the same hours. We can't change how the market values their services, but we can make the outcomes more equal -- by having progressive tax system.

 

[tooAlive]

ilia25 and Obama and the Dims have been saying it's about "fairness." Furthermore, ilia25 admitted he doesn't care how much revenue it raises. So presumably he would still support it even if it raised zero revenue.

Then they're being philosophical, which can be just about anything you want it to be.

I beg to differ, the question of fairness goes beyond abstract philosophy

I think it is unfair when one person makes in a day what other make in a year while working more or less the same hours. We can't change how the market values their services, but we can make the outcomes more equal -- by having progressive tax system.

Yes, it is fair. It's absolutely 110% fair. Nobody is forcing that person to earn so little.

Why do you feel it's necessary to take from the person earning more? Who cares how many hours they work.

What isn't fair is your "charitable" way of stealing. Socialism is another word for theft.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Why would I care about that number?

I want to know when we reach your perfect world.

So why do you keep avoiding the question?

I answered your question -- I don't care. Just as I don't care what will be the color of John Boehner tie the next time I see him on TV. My world would not become any more or less perfect because of it.

So if raising the top rate to 70% reduces the amount the rich pay, that would be fine with you.
Interesting.

 

[ilia25]

Leaving them with 5 millions instead of 10 hardly constitutes "killing".

So what if it doesn't kill them??

They earned their money!

They were able to earn in only by being a part of our society. Millions of other members of society had to make the right decisions every day to make it happen. That is why no one can claim that their income is theirs and theirs only.

 

[ilia25]

Why would I care about that number?

I want to know when we reach your perfect world.

So why do you keep avoiding the question?

I answered your question -- I don't care. Just as I don't care what will be the color of John Boehner tie the next time I see him on TV. My world would not become any more or less perfect because of it.

So if raising the top rate to 70% reduces the amount the rich pay, that would be fine with you.
Interesting.

Well, rising top rate to 70% could only increase the amount the rich pay. But if sometime in the future they will be paying a smaller share of taxes, I would not mind at all. In fact, I would be happy because it would mean less income inequality.