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'm watching a documentary on the French Revolution, and it brought up the very well known fact that in the decades before the bloody event the wealthiest nobles were paying virtually nothing while the middle classes and below were paying ridiculously high taxes. In America at the moment, guys like Mitt Romney are paying around 15 percent and guys like me (a very middle class Soldier) and probably you are paying near 30 percent. Come on my Republican brethren, isn't it about time to double the taxes of the wealthiest Americans so we can return to some semblance of economic normalcy?
taxing income means nothing
if you are even going to tax the rich the only way the they can even make a dent is by taxing wealth.
but how are you going to get that?
that's why rich are revoking their USA citizenship.
they are scared as hell they will be Cyprused and bailed in
Nor do we really, the "poor" actually pay a lot more in taxes then most assume. social security is 6.4%...twice!
Then fee's, licenses, etc etc.
But sure, lets broaden the tax base, and then also implement european style safety nets and benefits. Im game. Ohhh...but turns out thats actually WORSE for the rich. huh....but often good for the country....hmmmm
I'm watching a documentary on the French Revolution, and it brought up the very well known fact that in the decades before the bloody event the wealthiest nobles were paying virtually nothing while the middle classes and below were paying ridiculously high taxes. In America at the moment, guys like Mitt Romney are paying around 15 percent and guys like me (a very middle class Soldier) and probably you are paying near 30 percent. Come on my Republican brethren, isn't it about time to double the taxes of the wealthiest Americans so we can return to some semblance of economic normalcy?
Why not return to the tax rates of 1952?
This way EVERYBODY pays at least 22.2% even minimum wage workers!
//Sarcasm off
We shouldn't because only a complete idiot moron would be dumb enough to think higher tax rates results in more money being in the public treasury.
Here, let President Kennedy explain it to you in his own words.
Kennedy got his tax cut (it was a very serious tax cut at that) and look what happened!
In 1961 the total paid into the treasury was $158.7 billion
But by 1965 the total amount to the treasury was $193.6 billion on much, much lower tax rates.
"How can this be?" asks the moron to stupid to figure it out.
The answer is simple, if you want less of something all you have to do is tax it. You want less economic activity? It's easy, all you have to do is tax it.
Want to sell less cars? All you got to do is tax it and you don't need a tax on the car just the money people earn to pay for the car and "poof!" that silly car buying activity is gone forever!
I work hard for my money and if you tax me at 90% you want to take a guess at what I will do? Answer is simple, I will sit at home and do nothing.
I should also say that for the last 60 years the amount to the treasury in terms of percentage of GDP has always remained pretty much stable.
" *Individual income tax rates for the lowest and second lowest quintiles are negative and are netted against the payroll tax rate. A quintile is one fifth of the population. Calculations assume that employees also pay the employer portion of payroll taxes in the form of reduced wages. The breaks are (in 2013 dollars): 20% $24,191; 40% $47,261; 60% $79,521; 80% $134,266; 90% $180,482; 95% $261,471; 99% $615,048; 99.9% $3,170,865."
Data source: Average Effective Federal Tax Rates Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Yes, the same Urban Institute Democrat LBJ established, and the Brookings Institution, which a 2011 study examining employee donations from 2003 to 2010 showed that 97.6% of Brookings's employees' political donations went to Democrats and described the think tank as liberal. Think Tank Employees Tend to Support Democrats - US News
And when local and state taxes (like property tax, sales tax, local/state fuel taxes, etc.) are added to the analysis, the result is still quite progressive. Data from the same 2 liberal think tanks shows that the bottom 20% of American households pay 13% percent of their incomes in total taxes, and the top 1% pay 43% of their incomes, about 3.5 times as much: http://static2.businessinsider.com/i...stribution.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
But sure, lets broaden the tax base, and then also implement european style safety nets and benefits. Im game. Ohhh...but turns out thats actually WORSE for the rich. huh....but often good for the country....hmmmm
Regressive taxes aren't worse for the rich.
Quote:
"European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill."
Because the U.S. relies on relatively few for the bulk of tax revenue, we can't fund the social welfare programs (like national health care, single-payer, whichever one prefers to call it) European countries use regressive taxes to fund. 64% of European countries' tax revenues are collected via regressive taxes.
Kennedy got his tax cut (it was a very serious tax cut at that) and look what happened!
In 1961 the total paid into the treasury was $158.7 billion
But by 1965 the total amount to the treasury was $193.6 billion on much, much lower tax rates.
"How can this be?" asks the moron too stupid to figure it out.
The answer is simple, if you want less of something all you have to do is tax it. You want less economic activity? It's easy, all you have to do is tax it.
Want to sell less cars? All you got to do is tax it and you don't need a tax on the car just the money people earn to pay for the car and "poof!" that silly car buying activity is gone forever!
I work hard for my money and if you tax me at 90% you want to take a guess at what I will do? Answer is simple, I will sit at home and do nothing.
Exactly!
Many of us have already made that transition. We're starving the beast.
Someone else can bust their ass only to have to give 43% of the fruits of their labor to local, state, and federal governments while others only have to pay 13% (see my previous post).
Kennedy got his tax cut (it was a very serious tax cut at that) and look what happened!
In 1961 the total paid into the treasury was $158.7 billion
But by 1965 the total amount to the treasury was $193.6 billion on much, much lower tax rates.
"How can this be?" asks the moron to stupid to figure it out.
The answer is simple, if you want less of something all you have to do is tax it. You want less economic activity? It's easy, all you have to do is tax it.
Want to sell less cars? All you got to do is tax it and you don't need a tax on the car just the money people earn to pay for the car and "poof!" that silly car buying activity is gone forever!
I work hard for my money and if you tax me at 90% you want to take a guess at what I will do? Answer is simple, I will sit at home and do nothing.
I should also say that for the last 60 years the amount to the treasury in terms of percentage of GDP has always remained pretty much stable.
You are forgetting one big thing with tax rate in 1952. Inflation.
$101k (taxed at 41% rate)income in 1952 is close to $900k in 2014 income. Most even "rich" people don't "earn $900k in income).
People need to understand many "rich" people don't earn income. We can go back to 1952 rates and you still won't collect much more than the Feds are collecting right now.
Tax exempt bonds. Capital gains taxes (remember USA doesn't even come close to having the lowest capital gains rates). Even some high tax countries like the UK have much lower short term capital gains rates than the USA. Deferred income. I could go on and on.
Bottom line is going back to 1952 tax income rates won't help make a dent. You aren't going to collect much more in taxes.
Because I don't have any so I am entitled to have theirs. If you disagree, I'll vote for Democrat politicians who will take yours to give to me anyway.
I think they should be taxed fairly, not necessarily at higher rates.
Go after offshore corporate profits first of all. Go after every dollar of income everyone makes no matter where they make it. If they still persist in evading taxes by hiding income, revoke their citizenship and invite them to live in whatever country they are trying to hide their money in.
Impose import tariffs on Chinese made goods, and big tariffs. That will help put Americans back to work and help ease the deficit.
Eliminate tax shelters for the rich. Increase inheritance taxes.
Go after everything but don't raise their basic income tax because you want them producing and stimulating the economy, just go after their greed-tax their greed.
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.
