Why don't you want to tax the rich?

[OODA_Loop]

See? Dumb.

Do you need government to tell you what side of the road to drive on?

I bet you require government to tell you when to take a shit.

The law establishes the direction of traffic on roads......a government enforces those laws.

Peristaltic action not government intervention. Government does establish where shitting is inappropriate and illegal

 

[gipper]

The law establishes the direction of traffic on roads......a government enforces those laws.

Peristaltic action not government intervention. Government does establish where shitting is inappropriate and illegal

So without government, you think all the people will drive all over the road. Nonsense.

Do you need it to tell you to love and protect your wife and children? Do need it to tell you how to read and write? Do you need it to tell you not to steal, rape, and murder?

 

[Thinker101]

See? Dumb.

Do you need government to tell you what side of the road to drive on?

I bet you require government to tell you when to take a shit.

Apparently, because illegals driving big rigs can't seem to grasp the concept.

 

[rightwinger]

There absolutely is

No one needs the wealthy to pay mmore we need everyone paying less

Resulting a net reduction in revenue

 

[LeftofLeft]

Typical RW logic
I found $10 M in expenditures I don’t understand so I will use that as a reason to claim a $4 trillion budget is a waste of money.

Why would we spend $10 M for circumcisions in Mozambique?
Because AIDS is ravaging Africa and we can’t afford to spend tens of thousands on treatments that US citizens get. So low cost measures like education, condoms and circumcisions are supported

So not one item of the $4 Trillion budget is subject to questioning or reduction??? Liberal logic: “don’t question anything on the budget. It’s all justified for the infrastructure utilized and benefiting the wealthy mostly who by the way is not paying enough of their fair share.”

No wonder your side gets swept in elections. You have zero fiscal sanity.

 

[Nostra]

That is like saying we spent $30 trillion on the military and still no improvement

No,,it isn’t.

Dumbest post of the year.

 

[leftwinger]

You guys are so funny. I love that you want to tax the poor and working classes more than they are today. It’s beautiful.

Paying healthy lazy corrupt people to stay home is too costly. Those people need to go to work rather than scamming the system. How to do it? Have to try. It builds character and self esteem. Less criminals with idle time.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Roads are financed by bonds bought by the people

Because private wealth took the investment risk first.

 

[rightwinger]

So without government, you think all the people will drive all over the road. Nonsense.

Yes

Government tells them to drive on the right, obey speed limits, government demands safer cars and safer roads.
Without Government we have anarchy

 

[task0778]

From 1944 to 1963 the tax rate was 90+%. All indicators including GDP and standard of living and more for everybody grew at more than twice the rate it does now. Today the rich get richer at an astounding rate higher than the non-rich.

It was a different time and different situation then. Do you really think our economy today could withstand such a high tax rate? Other countries have tried that, with the result that the rich people sold out, packed up, and left for somewhere else. Sweden, Great Britain, France, they all tried this with the same result: they didn't get the anticipated additional revenue but they did get a smaller tax base cuz the top earners/investors, said **** you and they left.

I can't think of the guy's name, but a professor somewhere did a study back in the 80s on the relationship between tax rates and revenue and found that changing the marginal tax rates didn't really move the revenue needle. Fur sure the rich get richer cuz they have more money to invest, no surprise there. Is it not obvious that if you raise taxes on the investor class that you get less investments in the economy? They'll put less money into taxable assets and more into non-taxable assets or they just leave if it gets too onerous.

 

[struth]

EFFECTIVE tax rates, not marginal. Came directly from YOUR link. If you don’t like your links, don’t post them.

I know it grew worse by cutting top tier taxes.

My link didn’t have the 2025 rates

They were older articles discussing the 1950 tax rates

 

[OODA_Loop]

So without government, you think all the people will drive all over the road. Nonsense.

Do you need it to tell you to love and protect your wife and children? Do need it to tell you how to read and write? Do you need it to tell you not to steal, rape, and murder?

Lets see how it looks where there weak government enforcement of the roads in India. And you promote no government.

Do not need government to tell me to love anyone.

Do not need it tell me how to read and write.

Do not need them to tell me not murder, rape and steal but do need them to prosecute and punish those who do.

Here some things government is needed for:

• Protection of private property rights
• Establishment of weights and measures
• Providing banking oversight and protections
• Common defense

 

[struth]

Lol.

Thinking the status quo is acceptable, merely proves how uninformed you are.

Thinking authoritarian govt is acceptable merely proves how uninformed you are

 

[rightwinger]

So not one item of the $4 Trillion budget is subject to questioning or reduction??? Liberal logic: “don’t question anything on the budget. It’s all justified for the infrastructure utilized and benefiting the wealthy mostly who by the way is not paying enough of their fair share.”

No wonder your side gets swept in elections. You have zero fiscal sanity.

Our budget is established by bipartisan legislators elected by We the People
Not every line item benefits every person equally. Some benefits the poor while others benefit the rich.
Collectively it benefits everyone.

Some line items have benefits you don’t understand.
Like circumcisions in Mozambique

 

[Orangecat]

Anyone who is concerned over how much money someone else is making is a loser. If you think you are being taxed too much, blame the entity that’s actually taxing you, not another citizen who’s managed to pay a lower rate. Change your mindset and you’ll change your life.

 

[leftwinger]

It was a different time and different situation then. Do you really think our economy today could withstand such a high tax rate? Other countries have tried that, with the result that the rich people sold out, packed up, and left for somewhere else. Sweden, Great Britain, France, they all tried this with the same result: they didn't get the anticipated additional revenue but they did get a smaller tax base cuz the top earners/investors, said **** you and they left.

I can't think of the guy's name, but a professor somewhere did a study back in the 80s on the relationship between tax rates and revenue and found that changing the marginal tax rates didn't really move the revenue needle. Fur sure the rich get richer cuz they have more money to invest, no surprise there. Is it not obvious that if you raise taxes on the investor class that you get less investments in the economy? They'll put less money into taxable assets and more into non-taxable assets or they just leave if it gets too onerous.

//* Hauser's Law. I posted it one page back. I posted the 100 yr chart. I'm going out. Board Stain just ignore factual data every time. Every thread since I've been on this disgusting site with them the uneducated swine. *//

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes because it was filled with loopholes, massive tax avoidance

And actually drove the wealth gap up and tax revenue down

Historical Tax Rates: The Rhetoric and Reality of Taxing the Rich - The Concord Coalition

Addressing our nation’s long-term fiscal challenge will require additional revenue, including higher taxes on the rich. However, before policymakers succumb to the popular desire to impose higher marginal tax rates on the rich, they should consider whether taxes are as unfair as many people...

www.concordcoalition.org

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Despite high marginal income tax rates, the top 1% of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42% of their income in taxes. See more about taxes on the rich.

taxfoundation.org

We have loopholes and massive avoidance now.

 

[task0778]

//* Hauser's Law. I posted it one page back. I posted the 100 yr chart. I'm going out. Board Stain just ignore factual data every time. Every thread since I've been on this disgusting site with them the uneducated swine. *//

Thank you. I'm old, got some memory loss. Hauser's law is not opinion or theory, it's based on actual, factual data. Revenue from tax rate changes are not linear, they are dynamic. Meaning that people will adjust their behavior; raise taxes and you get less investing.

 

[struth]

We have loopholes and massive avoidance now.

Not really, most loopholes were closed

How did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act change personal taxes?

taxpolicycenter.org

 

[flack]

If those making those sums are 'aggressively taxed' what makes you think these gov't thieves won't aggressively tax you next? I like the idea of no income tax. Tax on consumption. Then the taxpayer has the choice of whether or not they will pay the tax or produce for themselves.