Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:
I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
how about all the people who pay 0?or even worse than 0 are burdens on society?
how about the fact all of the income tax collected in this country doesnt even pay the interest on the national debt?
how about the fact these scumbag politicians buy votes with tax payer money and spend money without any accountability whatsoever? the more you let them tax the more you let them spend figuring they can just go back and steal more whenever they feel like it.
And there is no chance taxes on the 1 pct go up to 50% without it going up on everyone else by a lot.When an 18 year old bimbo maxes out daddys credit card and daddy's response is to raise the limits she just spends more money without a care in the world. The gov't is no different.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
Also, if you tax them at 50% they are going to find a way to maintain their current lifestyle. That may mean making even more money by laying off some of the people working for them, raising their prices, or sending more work overseas.
One of the great fallacies of Keynesian economics is that Taxpayer A will manage his money in precisely the same way whether the tax rate is 20% or 50%. And raising the tax rate does not ensure higher revenues. In fact, in the case of capital gains taxes, the opposite has proved to be the case.
Because when you lower the capital gains tax, more people have incentive to actually conduct transactions. Less money is essentially locked away, which means more money gets out in circulation.
1. The fact that the top 1% paid 50% of the taxes in Eisenhower's time: Assuming that is correct, it would be the highest % they paid in the 240-yr history of the republic. So why use that as a reasonable baseline?
2. You are totally wrong on the numbers - $2 trillion at $400 billion at a time would take 5 years. $400 billion extra rev. would turn the yearly deficit from $1 trillion currently to $600 billion. SO in 5 years, you would have an extra $3 trillion added to the national debt. You don't pay off any of the $16 trillion national debt with this ridiculous hike- you only add to it slightly less quickly.
Further, you wouldnt raise $400 billion. The sharper and more punitive the tax rise, the greater avoidance that takes place and the less that is raised. In BRitain, the hike from 40% to 50% of the top tax raised only 40% of what was forecast and was scaled back to 45% starting next year.
A .0025 percent tax on all financial transactions would pay off the US debt within 3 years and create surpluses after that - even with eliminating the current IRS tax codes and system and switching to a 2% income tax on anyone making less than $30,000 a year, 4% for anyone making between $30,000 - $100,00 and then 5% for anyone making $100,000 - $500,000 and 6% for anything above that.
Problem solved. At least until the government starts requiring more money beyond what those numbers account for.
the government has not proven that it would reduce debt if it receives more revenue. more revenue = more debt. so even if you did double what you took in from the rich, you would just end up more than doubling the debt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
