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.
For those of you who oppose spending cuts, you really should read the entire column. Here is an excerpt;
"It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery."
Tax increases on the "rich" have always found their way down to the middle class. Just look at the AMT! Class warfare policies have the tendency to shift a higher tax burden on the widest portion of the tax base (clue: middle class). Yet, somehow the useful idiots and Obama lemmings screaming "tax the rich" seem oblivious to this historical fact.
For those of you who oppose spending cuts, you really should read the entire column. Here is an excerpt;
"It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery."
If there are people seriously opposed to spending cuts, I'm not one of them.
However, the article starts with this:
Quote:
President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes.
What's missing, and what is ALWAYS missing in biased articles, is the qualifier at the end; i.e., President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Personally, I think the tax rates for the vast majority of Americans are fine right where they are, with the glaring exception of the top marginal tax rate.
People who are rich (and a teacher in California earning $60,000 a year is NOT rich) should be taxed more. Make the cut-off a figure that the vast majority of Americans could agree on - say, if your income is more than $500,000 a year, your tax rate goes up, and you pay more in taxes.
Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent—the top rate during the 1990s—annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
These numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.
Last edited by GreenGene; 12-31-2016 at 09:34 AM..
I
People who are rich (and a teacher in California earning $60,000 a year is NOT rich) should be taxed more. Make the cut-off a figure that the vast majority of Americans could agree on - say, if your income is more than $500,000 a year, your tax rate goes up, and you pay more in taxes.
The top marginal tax rate is a useless number. I has no meaning when trying to make historical comparisons since there are many other variables impacting a person's actual taxes.
And what I think you are really saying is that you agree with tax increases on some other dude. That's always what the tax increase crowd says.
That will never happen. People will simply stop working. .
Yes, but it does not happen on one step. As tax burdens increase, people make decisions that have a negative impact. Taxes are an important part of most people's financial decisions.
President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Personally, I think the tax rates for the vast majority of Americans are fine right where they are, with the glaring exception of the top marginal tax rate.
So, how exactly do you expect new jobs to be created if the people who create new jobs don't have any money?
What's really funny is you're walking around with your cell-phone and MP3 Player precisely because the millionaires and billionaires you're jealous of weren't taxed at 70%.
Why don't take your spiffy little electronic device and shop it around. See who gives you $30 Million to start your business faster, a bank, the government or the millionaires and billionaires you think aren't paying their "fair share."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Yes, but it does not happen on one step. As tax burdens increase, people make decisions that have a negative impact. Taxes are an important part of most people's financial decisions.
One of the things that many don't understand is that back in the day when the tax rate was 90% it was 90%Wink!Wink! and then JFK reduced it to 70%Wink!Wink!.
One of the most simple concepts that the tax-n-spend *******s don't understand is that the IRS tax in effect in the 1950s and 1960s isn't the same tax code in effect today.
Can you take credit card interest payments as a credit against your taxes? No, but you could in the 1950s.
Can you deduct your State sales taxes, city/county sales taxes, State and local earnings taxes, State income taxes, State sales taxes on gasoline, federal excise taxes on gasoline, federal excise taxes on tires etc etc?
No, but you could back then.
Can you deduct your property taxes and the taxes you pay to school districts? No, but you could back then.
"Business Expense" in the IRS tax code then was very vaguely defined. That's why if you look at the Milton Berle Show and all of those old sitcoms, they make jokes about the "Three Martini Lunch."
So, yes, the tax rate may have been 90%, but after all of the "allowable" deductions, and the majority were taken as credits against taxes owed, not credits against adjustable income, they ended up with a "real" tax rate of 30%-40% and I imagine some unlucky ones who didn't have so clever an accountant might have actually paid 50%.
For those of you who oppose spending cuts, you really should read the entire column. Here is an excerpt;
"It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery."
The idea of forcing more taxes on anyone just shows what IDIOTS we have in Congress. First of all, anyone with any means will either leave the country and do business elsewhere so they won't have to pay as much tax OR scale down their business or earnings to they don't have to pay as much in taxes. The government won't get the taxes they think they will. Not only that but if they think unemployment is bad now, just WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THEY TRY RAISING TAXES.
Taxes are REGRESSIVE! They don't help the economy they HURT the economy.
For those of you who oppose spending cuts, you really should read the entire column. Here is an excerpt;
"It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery."
We need to get full employment and we need it now. We need more bottom end income as well. Then the burden that the bottom end posses to the rest of us can be carried by them.
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.
