But we used to tax the rich at 90%... (dollars, economy, retirement)
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.
What, pray tell, are these magical deductions?
Last time I checked, I was "phased out" of most of them.
Graywar should start his own CPA service because I get phased out most of the time too. He could get lots of work letting us know what deductions that aren't. He's just a 10%er but thinks he knows it all even above what makes me.
So please do tell gray war, where are all those deductions you keep talking about?
Literal interpretations of a 200 year old document created by rapist slave-drivers is hardly credible in the field of modern money theory. We have constitutional law scholars for a reason; the Founding Fathers were idiots.
Rapist slave drivers built all of the worlds great empires.
Your man Marx has a few hundred million starved and/or shot corpses under his belt.
And "modern money theory" is best left to people who can read a modern currency unit.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-14-2015 at 10:42 AM..
Reason: rude
The purpose of our government is to protect our natural rights. That includes the rights of business to pay the people who run the place what the business thinks it is worth. Simply taking for the sake of taking, for no other reason than "someone has too much" is not the job of our government.
But please ask the candidates who subscribe to your beliefs to be wide open about them, and not hide behind a fallacious 90% tax rate to pretend this kind of arbitrary confiscation of income has been done before. It hasn't
There is no basis for the government to take in funds from taxation for any other reason than to pay the expenses of government and pay off government debt.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says the Congress can lay and collect taxes because they think you have too much. And please don't try to stretch "provide for ... general welfare" to pretend you are trying to do the people any good - it is nothing but tyranny.
You're no better than the religious right. You want to force the government to take from the rich for no reason other than because they have too much. You can try to wrap it up in pretending it's for the greater good, but you are trying to force your morals on the rest of society, using the force of government.
What you're proposing is that the United States government engage in a massive Ponzi scheme. Ask Bernie Madoff what happens when those crumble.
Great post. It sums up what Churchill said about capitalism vs socialism:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Socialism is appealing to those who have not achieved their personal goals in life and seek "justice" (where have we heard that before?) and retribution to assuage the sense of inadequacy and failure that haunts their conscience through means of "redistribution". By that mechanism, the liberal/socialist truely believes that appropriation of resources that are their own is not institutionalized theft, but "justice" finally realized.
The socialist/liberal will find true happiness and contentment when everyone is living in a mud hut, burning animal dung for fuel, and eating moldy wheat for food. Such an existence, although medievil and miserable, arrives at "equality", thus achieving the pinnacle of socialist goals.
Opin_Yunated is voicing exactly these sentiments. Such presumptions, given satisfying what is percieved as not only a personal slight, but a legal malfeasance, is a just and righteous position (at least in their minds). Thus liberalism- Greed and anger borne out of personal failure and dysfunction.
We've heard the tired old argument from the eat-the-rich crowd that the top income tax rate was 90%, but we still had a great economy. That, and how they just want to go back to the rates under Clinton, because the rich supposedly carried their weight back in the old days of higher marginal rates.
Do they really believe this because they don't understand how income taxes work, or are they purposely distorting how much of the tax burden was borne by higher income earners in the past?
It's time to put an end to the uninformed and/or disingenuous meme that the rich are somehow getting off easy these days.
Chart 3 is particularly interesting. It shows the percentages of income tax collected at the various marginal rates. As a percentage of total income taxes collected, the tax paid at the top rates today is higher than the tax paid at the top rates when the rates were as high as 90%.
If that's not enough, when tax rates were that much higher, the wealthy had loopholes/tax shelters that kept a great deal of income out of the hands of the IRS. It wasn't until the 80s, when Reagan lowered marginal rates, that the laws regarding tax shelters were reformed, so the wealthy could not so easily hide income from the tax man.
This idea that the rich actually paid a significant amount of income taxes at the 90% rate is nothing but class warfare propaganda.
It's not just about income tax from the "do as I say, not as I do" class warfare people:
Look at John Kerry who parked his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island so he wouldn't have to pay $500,000 in tax to Massachusetts.
"Estate tax champions Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing just about everything in their power to stave off hefty estate taxes on their own personal fortune, according to Bloomberg News. The report out Tuesday shows that the two heads of the political dynasty have been seizing on legal but slippery loopholes to minimize taxes on inherited wealth - maneuvers not atypical of multimillionaires but which will inevitably drum up cries of hypocrisy based on the Clintons' active support for the estate tax in the past. Bloomberg cites county property records that show the Clintons divided ownership of their New York home into separate 50 percent shares, then placed those shares into trusts. The moves ensure that any growth in the house's value will occur outside their estate and that they can claim a discounted value for the home, which could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands in estate tax avoidance."
What's the plan for paying to support the exponentially growing perpetually needy class? Higher taxes on those who actually contribute to society? Print more money and hyperinflate? What?
General Welfare. BAM constitutional. Here let me help:
Quote:
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
General welfare of the states united, not that of individual citizens, legal residents, or even illegal aliens.
Reading is fundamental.
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.
