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.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is a completely un-American, anti-democratic, and pro-corporatist idea that has no foundation in the principles of freedom and liberty.
Completely backwards. The states having a voice in the Senate was there to give the States equal protection from the federal government and to limit its size. The 17th amendment removed the states voice at the federal level and with that removal, came federal mandates and removal of states ability to legislate itself.
Well, if they can easily donate more for something as frivolous as political campaigns, they can easily afford to pay a bit more in taxes, right?
The notion that people should pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they work hard and become successful enough to make more money is probably one of the most un fair and un American American things I can think of.
What I can "afford to pay" is none of your concern, especially when much of it goes to waste through corruption, red tape and silly do nothing-feel good programs.
The only "fair tax" is a flat tax with no deductions and no exemptions.
I say the government starts to treat everyone equally, instead of trying their damnedest to make us all equally poor.
That's like saying everyone is equal to rent a suite at the Waldorf Astoria. Most cannot fund politicians the way the super-donors do. That gives these donors far more influence and access than the regular citizen, which is inherently an undemocratic principle.
We had a very prosperous country when tax-rates on upper incomes were higher. Since then, the rich got richer and everyone else has lost ground or is stagnant.
American has historically been a nation that pioneered very high taxes on the rich to foster the American egalitarian ideal and went along with fear of creating a hereditary aristocracy.
Conservatives, with their modern notion that redistribution and “penalizing success†is un-American is completely at odds with our country’s actual history. During the Progressive Era, it was commonplace and widely accepted to support high taxes on the rich specifically in order to keep the rich from getting richer.
High taxes on the wealthy coupled with redistribution are very much American ideals.
Show me the reports of all the rich liberals who are donating all their money over the national average to the government. Are you saying it should be illegal for rich people to invest? They should take their money and quit working?
Thanks for posting that. This information is widely and easily available.
I mean, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney admitted his effective tax rate was only around 13%. There are plenty of middle class people paying an effective higher rate than that.
You do realize Romney (and the other Super Rich) pay such a lower rate because it's mainly from investment income. This money has already been taxed on. Sure there is a major loophole called "carried interest" some hedge funds use to pay the 15% rate.
But the majority of super rich seem to have a lower tax rate because they live off passive income. John Kerry's wife (ketchup lady) paid about $600K federal taxes on 6 million dollars worth of "income". I am sure most was passive. Remember the super rich invest in tax exempt bonds, many of which are needed by cities and countries in order to fund infrastructure. Take away the tax exempt muni bonds, where is the city going to get money to build projects for the public.
In terms of capital gains rates, the US short term capital gains rate is much higher for the rich than even in highly taxed countries like the UK.
Overall the US capital gains rates is about middle of the road compared to other countries.
The notion that people should pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they work hard and become successful enough to make more money is probably one of the most un fair and un American American things I can think of.
What I can "afford to pay" is none of your concern, especially when much of it goes to waste through corruption, red tape and silly do nothing-feel good programs.
The only "fair tax" is a flat tax with no deductions and no exemptions.
Saying that those earn more do so because they "work harder" is an unfounded claim, especially since 6 out of ten on the Fortune 400 got their through inherited wealth.
We are living in a period among the lowest tax rates on the rich.
If you think the rich ever paid the top marginal rate, you're mistaken. They had far more tax deductions to go along with those high marginal rates. How do we know that the rich didn't pay those high tax rates? Historical data. Regardless of how high the top marginal tax rate was, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP remained relatively flat and was actually the lowest when top marginal rates were the highest.
Furthermore, regardless of how high the top marginal rate was, the actual effective tax rate was relatively flat.
(Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.)
The rich pay a share of the federal income tax revenue that is twice their share of the income, while the middle class (top 25-50%) is paying a share of the federal income tax revenue that is only about 1/2 their share of the income. The rich are over-paying their fair share of the federal income tax, and the middle class is underpaying their fair share, according to income shares.
Saying that those earn more do so because they "work harder" is an unfounded claim, especially since 6 out of ten on the Fortune 400 got their through inherited wealth.
Yeah, they worked hard winning the sperm lottery.
It is still FAMILY MONEY. Most inherited wealth is lost in future generations. Come back when you refuse any inheritance from your parents when they die. I hope you did the right thing and gave their house back to the bank or sold it and turned the proceeds over to the state.
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
The big difference here is they get to choose if they want to donate to a political campaign not if they want to pay more taxes.
Exactly. See my post on top marginal tax rate vs tax revenue, and top marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate.
The rest of your post was snipped because it was your opinion, based on a completely erroneous understanding of U.S. federal income tax history.
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.
