You Taught The GOP A Lesson: You Want Higher Taxes So They Will Grant Your Wish

[LeftCoastVoter]

And what you forget to mention, as anyone who pines for the good old days of a 90% bracket does, is that everyone was paying significantly higher taxes then not just the so called rich.

in 1954 when the top bracket was 91% the lowest was 20% and someone earning 40K was in the 56% bracket.

So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

yet $40k in 1954 is equal to $343k today. and the 56% tax bracket is not for all income, it is a graduate system. this it the current graduated tax rate system:

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus

so if the top rate was 56% today, it would only apply to income over $178,650. they would still pay the lower rates on all income below that according to the tax tables.

the problem here is that there are too many bullshit tax deductions that allow people to have no taxable income.. 47% of people to be exact.

a large majority of that 47% fall under that standard deduction for the most part. are you advocating we eliminate the standard deduction?

 

[Paulie]

Under Clinton the internet really got going.

But that probably had nothing to do with any of the economic prosperity. It had to be the taxes.

government R&D money helped create the internet. all paid for through........ taxes...

Yeah you go with that

 

[Skull Pilot]

look at what happened under Clinton.

Correlation does not equal causation.

taxes also pay for government contracts and government salaries which in turn gives people money to spend in the economy. so simply saying that taxes so not stimulate the economy is false.

So then if everyone worked for the government we would have a booming economy right?

And why do you believe that taking money from people to pay a government worker puts more money into the economy?

Look up the broken window fallacy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yet $40k in 1954 is equal to $343k today. and the 56% tax bracket is not for all income, it is a graduate system. this it the current graduated tax rate system:

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus

so if the top rate was 56% today, it would only apply to income over $178,650. they would still pay the lower rates on all income below that according to the tax tables.

the problem here is that there are too many bullshit tax deductions that allow people to have no taxable income.. 47% of people to be exact.

a large majority of that 47% fall under that standard deduction for the most part. are you advocating we eliminate the standard deduction?

Yes. A lower tax rate on gross income that is the same for all income no matter its source is the fair way to tax income.

 

[tjvh]

Under Clinton the internet really got going.

But that probably had nothing to do with any of the economic prosperity. It had to be the taxes.

government R&D money helped create the internet. all paid for through........ taxes...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LpxtKcLSFWw]Al Gore - Creator of the Internet - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, Joe.

Can you define 'fair share'?

fair share would equate to the percentage of my income that i pay to taxes. why should someone who makes millions per year pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than someone who make less than $100k? those making less than $100k put the majority of their income back into the economy which stimulates it and creates growth and job opportunities. the same can not be said for the top 2%.

rebuttal?

Federal taxes are not paid on what you're worth. They are paid when money changes hands.

Can you understand the concept?

If you want as federal property tax move to Germany.

when did i mention property tax?

federal income tax is paid on income, whether that is earned from a job or from investments.

my previous statement made no mention of money on which taxes has already been paid. but if you use that money to create more income, you are thus taxed on the gains. hence if i use $100M to create $10M more in wealth, i have an income of $10M that year and owe taxes on the $10M. should that $10M be treated differently than the income earned from a job? or should it be special because youre not working a job and simply investing?

 

[Koios]

Why should someone who makes 250K pay a higher percentage?

Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income no matter its source to the government

To pay for stuff

To reduce our debt / need to borrow more

To restore wealth distribution to 1980 levels (redistributive effect)

To grow the economy more rapidly

To encourage tax-dodging, via reinvesting and bonuses to prized workers

Taxes take money out of the economy so how can higher taxes grow the economy?

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

the problem here is that there are too many bullshit tax deductions that allow people to have no taxable income.. 47% of people to be exact.

a large majority of that 47% fall under that standard deduction for the most part. are you advocating we eliminate the standard deduction?

Yes. A lower tax rate on gross income that is the same for all income no matter its source is the fair way to tax income.

so you wish to raise taxes on a family of 4 making less than $50k annually? of an individual making less than $30k?

how exactly will that stimulate the economy? you wish to take more wealthy way from the middle and lower class?

 

[Skull Pilot]

To pay for stuff

To reduce our debt / need to borrow more

To restore wealth distribution to 1980 levels (redistributive effect)

To grow the economy more rapidly

To encourage tax-dodging, via reinvesting and bonuses to prized workers

Taxes take money out of the economy so how can higher taxes grow the economy?

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

If the dollar was left in the private sector it would not be spent, saved or invested?

No one stuffs money in a mattress anymore you know.

If I invested the 60K a year I pay in taxes it would do more good for the economy than it does now.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Correlation does not equal causation.

taxes also pay for government contracts and government salaries which in turn gives people money to spend in the economy. so simply saying that taxes so not stimulate the economy is false.

So then if everyone worked for the government we would have a booming economy right?

And why do you believe that taking money from people to pay a government worker puts more money into the economy?

Look up the broken window fallacy.

who drives the economy? the middle class. when the middle class has more money it is string, which int urn allow them to purchase more goods and services, which in turn creates more business for those companies, which in turn increases revenues and profits, which in turn grows companies, which in turn allows them to expand, which in turn allows them to hire more workers, which in turn creates more tax payers, which in turn allows those new workers to spend more money in the economy.

is this concept lost on conservatives?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

To pay for stuff

To reduce our debt / need to borrow more

To restore wealth distribution to 1980 levels (redistributive effect)

To grow the economy more rapidly

To encourage tax-dodging, via reinvesting and bonuses to prized workers

Taxes take money out of the economy so how can higher taxes grow the economy?

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is how you accumulate 16 trillion dolalrs in debt, 1.3 trillion in deficit spends and around 122 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Coupled with crony socialism, corporatism and a central banking system that is hoodwinking the citizens!



Preach it good, fella!

 

[Koios]

Taxes take money out of the economy so how can higher taxes grow the economy?

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is how you accumulate 16 trillion dolalrs in debt, 1.3 trillion in deficit spends and around 122 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Coupled with crony socialism, corporatism and a central banking system that is hoodwinking the citizens!



Preach it good, fella!

How so? Do you understand the economic dynamic, or are you merely spouting unrelated and unsubstantiated righty rhetoric? (tip: the latter)

 

[Skull Pilot]

taxes also pay for government contracts and government salaries which in turn gives people money to spend in the economy. so simply saying that taxes so not stimulate the economy is false.

So then if everyone worked for the government we would have a booming economy right?

And why do you believe that taking money from people to pay a government worker puts more money into the economy?

Look up the broken window fallacy.

who drives the economy? the middle class. when the middle class has more money it is string, which int urn allow them to purchase more goods and services, which in turn creates more business for those companies, which in turn increases revenues and profits, which in turn grows companies, which in turn allows them to expand, which in turn allows them to hire more workers, which in turn creates more tax payers, which in turn allows those new workers to spend more money in the economy.

is this concept lost on conservatives?

And what does that have to do with government workers?

Leaving money in the hands of the people would do exactly the same thing. If I paid less in taxes then I would save spend or invest more and we all know that the private sector uses money more efficiently than does the government.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

So then if everyone worked for the government we would have a booming economy right?

And why do you believe that taking money from people to pay a government worker puts more money into the economy?

Look up the broken window fallacy.

who drives the economy? the middle class. when the middle class has more money it is string, which int urn allow them to purchase more goods and services, which in turn creates more business for those companies, which in turn increases revenues and profits, which in turn grows companies, which in turn allows them to expand, which in turn allows them to hire more workers, which in turn creates more tax payers, which in turn allows those new workers to spend more money in the economy.

is this concept lost on conservatives?

And what does that have to do with government workers?

Leaving money in the hands of the people would do exactly the same thing. If I paid less in taxes then I would save spend or invest more and we all know that the private sector uses money more efficiently than does the government.

if you made over $1M a year, are you really going to dump $750K+ a year into the economy? or are you actually going sit sit on the majority of that wealth?

so government workers arent consumers?

 

[Koios]

Taxes take money out of the economy so how can higher taxes grow the economy?

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

If the dollar was left in the private sector it would not be spent, saved or invested?

No one stuffs money in a mattress anymore you know.

If I invested the 60K a year I pay in taxes it would do more good for the economy than it does now.

Any one of the three, however, retained earnings seem to be what's happening more so, and to an alarming degree, currently. So most of the money the President proposes be taken in tax (then spent into the economy of course) is indeed, by and large, money sitting and doing little to benefit the economy as a whole.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess it's no use arguing with someone that wants to be the on the menu of Washington's dinner table.

I'm willing to pay higher taxes and receive fewer benefits

Are you?

I am. I'd support a bill adding a 10% raise in the income tax owed by everyone for the next ten years or until the Congress can produce a viable, fair (as in progressive) and comprehensive system of tax reform.

I'll bet you're also willing to march down the chute into the abattoir.

Who gives a **** what a clueless servile drone like you is willing to do?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's exactly wrong. The dollar does not evaporate; it's spent.

Moreover, the reason progressive taxes work so well, beyond redistributive effect, which is also vital, is that it taxes monies that are less likely to be spent, which would languish in net worths of the very well-off. If that stangant dollar is taken in tax and spent into the economy by the government, it actually gets it moving through the economy, mobilizing capital and growing the market economy.

And who benefits most from economic growth? The very well-off. Things get better and their incomes rise right with it. Meanwhile, not true of a service worker at McDonald's. Their pay does not rise with the increased economic activity; only the McDonald's owner's income does, which typically means they'll hire more people to cover the increased demand, and only raise the individual worker's pay if the prevailing wage or minimum wage increases force them to.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is how you accumulate 16 trillion dolalrs in debt, 1.3 trillion in deficit spends and around 122 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Coupled with crony socialism, corporatism and a central banking system that is hoodwinking the citizens!



Preach it good, fella!

How so? Do you understand the economic dynamic, or are you merely spouting unrelated and unsubstantiated righty rhetoric? (tip: the latter)

Well, Corky, let me try to explain it as simply as I can and not waste a ton of my time.
The governments "redistribution effect" has created a nation of consumers and borrows and not builders and savers. Adding to that dilemma is the fact that the government ALWAYS spends more than it receives. Then needing to borrow or "print" the currency up to meet its obligations. When this happens, as the poster I originally quoted shows, the purchasing power decreases substantially. Then the government turns around and needs to do one of it's three only means of acquiring revenue, again.....Borrow/"print"/Tax.

The process never ends, and only leads to the boiling point of every redistributive and fiat currency scheme.

 

[bripat9643]

So, what will get us out of debt?

Do you propose cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and privatizing each?

What might be the effect of such a policy change?

I propose cutting all the ticks off of the government teat. The effect of such a policy will be prosperity and freedom.

 

[Paulie]

who drives the economy? the middle class. when the middle class has more money it is string, which int urn allow them to purchase more goods and services, which in turn creates more business for those companies, which in turn increases revenues and profits, which in turn grows companies, which in turn allows them to expand, which in turn allows them to hire more workers, which in turn creates more tax payers, which in turn allows those new workers to spend more money in the economy.

is this concept lost on conservatives?

And what does that have to do with government workers?

Leaving money in the hands of the people would do exactly the same thing. If I paid less in taxes then I would save spend or invest more and we all know that the private sector uses money more efficiently than does the government.

if you made over $1M a year, are you really going to dump $750K+ a year into the economy? or are you actually going sit sit on the majority of that wealth?

so government workers arent consumers?

What good would sitting on it do? You're lucky to get 1% right now.

 

[WillowTree]

If every single bureaucrat and department and agency in the Federal Gov. cut it's budget by 10% we'd be outta debt.