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.
I can't help but notice you're a right wing troll that starts numerous inflammatory and stupid threads, and rarely sticks around to discuss them at any length. I know better than to feed trolls, but I will take you seriously once and see if you are capable of a rebuttal.
First off, the U.S. tax rate used to be around ~80% and we did great. Second, even if 50% tax rates were prohibitively high, it's just one state.
I can't help but notice you're a right wing troll that starts numerous inflammatory and stupid threads, and rarely sticks around to discuss them at any length.
First off, the U.S. tax rate used to be around ~80% and we did great. Second, even if 50% tax rates were prohibitively high, it's just one state.
Sorry but the truth always hurts reagarding leftwing policies
Sounds like the unrestrained greed of California's liberal leadership is about to drive another round of migration to my state.
The only bright spot...once again, it will be the hardest working, most successful people leaving...bringing their money and often businesses with them. At least the criminal aliens and welfare crowd has it too good their to want to leave.
I can't help but notice you're a right wing troll that starts numerous inflammatory and stupid threads, and rarely sticks around to discuss them at any length. I know better than to feed trolls, but I will take you seriously once and see if you are capable of a rebuttal.
First off, the U.S. tax rate used to be around ~80% and we did great. Second, even if 50% tax rates were prohibitively high, it's just one state.
Interesting side note, when the rate was 80%, THERE WERE MORE DEDUCTIONS ALSO. Even interest from credit cards and car notes were deductable.
From the tax reform act of 1986
Quote:
The act decreased the use of tax shelters, devices taxpayers used to generate deductions and tax credits Congress accomplished this goal by enacting Section 469 of the Internal Revenue Code, known to tax experts as the "passive loss rules." The heart of the passive loss rules is that losses from passive tax shelters and losses from operating rental real estate can only be used as a deduction, or credit, against profits from other passive tax shelters and real estate. For example, a doctor could not deduct losses from real estate holdings against the income she earned in her medical practice. This largely put an end to taxpayers' use of tax shelters, which had, up until 1986, dramatically reduced federal revenues. Section 469 has a number of exceptions and limits, the most important of which are the following: (a) the rules do not apply to widely held corporations; and (b) passive losses are available in full only when a taxpayer disposes of the entire investment in a taxable sale or exchange. The new rules reportedly resulted in significant declines in the values of real estate.
The act eliminated deductions for interest expenses associated with buying personal consumption goods. (The sole exception is interest payments on home loans.) The prior law allowing interest expense deductions for borrowing money to buy consumer goods has always been questionable because it encouraged personal consumption. The repeal of the deduction eliminated this incentive. This part of the 1986 act has withstood the test of time and remains an important feature of American tax law.
The act repealed the universal individual retirement account (IRA) deduction in favor of restricting the deduction to people who did not have pension coverage through other avenues, such as their employer. Before repeal, everyone, no matter how wealthy or how much they benefited from other pension arrangements, could take a deduction for contributions made to an IRA. Now, only certain taxpayers are permitted to do so. The universal IRA deduction was appropriately considered an unjustifiable source of revenue losses. The 1986 act is applauded for this change.
So, while it reduced the tax rates the rich paid, it also revoked MANY of the deductions being used to reduce the taxes paid. It's easy to make claims that taxes were this and that, but to gloss over the rest of the story, makes the data you present inaccurate.
Actually it was a 3% raise on the state marginal tax to help prevent school cuts which would hamper the education system and increase class sizes.
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.
