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.
According to so many posters here who are blinded by their own envy, it's OK for middle-class public employees to now be bankrupted by these thieves (as those same thieves did to them), as long as the rich (thieves) can keep their current tax rates (which have dropped every year since 1920)?
I agree with all who have said the system IS broken. But if we're gonna SHARE a sacrifice to fix it, dammit, let's start sharing it with EVERYONE ... rich included!
I wish more people would fact check the "facts" they repeat. The federal Income tax didn't start until 1913 so by 1920 the Top rate was 73% for every dollar over $1,000,000. Inflation adjust $1 million is the equivalent of $10.6 million today. In 1945 the top rate was 94% on every dollar over $200,000, the equivalent of $2,358,000 today. Those rates did not start to go down much until Kennedy.
I don't consider people who work hard and earn high incomes as thieves. By lumping them in with the elite who manipulate the system and make gains off of government protected monopoly, you sound no better than those you deride.
The high earners are paying their fair share.....fair share is not a progressive amount, a fair share is for my share of services I use...not someone elses....
Does this have anything to do with what I said in my post? If so, I'm not following it.
Does your assertion make it OK to break contracts with public workers and steal their funds?
The rich have NOT paid a fair share in decades ... but O-my, they are too big to fail!!! (or pay part of this shared sacrifice, it seems)
[quote=pvs;17998793]Does this have anything to do with what I said in my post? If so, I'm not following it.
Does your assertion make it OK to break contracts with public workers and steal their funds?
Steal whose funds? I thought those were tax payer dollars....Did they put that money there, no they did not...I believe, as the taxpayer, those are my funds....and their running out. Any contract can be broken knuckle head, things change and when you run out of money a contract is worthless...being broke menas things change.
The rich have NOT paid a fair share in decades ... but O-my, they are too big to fail!!! (or pay part of this shared sacrifice, it seems)
What dreamworld land do you live in.....so someone pays 100K in taxes in a yr they are not paying their fair share, but someone who pays $0 income taxes in a yr does........Sorry, your idea of collective poverty for the common good doesn't work....clueless....Again, your crying to continue to rob the public won't work....
By the way, the bailouts were loans...think most of them were paid back.....
I wish more people would fact check the "facts" they repeat. The federal Income tax didn't start until 1913 so by 1920 the Top rate was 73% for every dollar over $1,000,000. Inflation adjust $1 million is the equivalent of $10.6 million today. In 1945 the top rate was 94% on every dollar over $200,000, the equivalent of $2,358,000 today. Those rates did not start to go down much until Kennedy.
I don't consider people who work hard and earn high incomes as thieves. By lumping them in with the elite who manipulate the system and make gains off of government protected monopoly, you sound no better than those you deride.
And they are even lower now. Why? How can you argue that higher taxes are ineffective when the present morass is clearly a result of letting the wealthy escape what should actually be much higher taxes than what existed in 1913? Really, what part of this puzzle am I missing?
The rich have NOT paid a fair share in decades ... but O-my, they are too big to fail!!! (or pay part of this shared sacrifice, it seems)
Gimme a break!
the rich havent paid their share????
just what do you think a fair share is
the top50% of ALL EARNERS paid 97% of all income taxes
how much more do you want
btw when JFK and reagan lowered the rates the closed many of the loopholes so EFFECTIVLY the rich may be paying alower rate, but are actually paying MORE
And they are even lower now. Why? How can you argue that higher taxes are ineffective when the present morass is clearly a result of letting the wealthy escape what should actually be much higher taxes than what existed in 1913? Really, what part of this puzzle am I missing?
And they are even lower now. Why? How can you argue that higher taxes are ineffective when the present morass is clearly a result of letting the wealthy escape what should actually be much higher taxes than what existed in 1913? Really, what part of this puzzle am I missing?
H
yet you are not understanding
in the yesteryears of the 20,'s through the 50's the top bracket (ie the rich) was taxed at 70-90%..BUT it was on amounts in todays dollars would be more than 10 milion..not 250k..and there were many loopholes
the rich pay more money as a percentage today than EVER BEFORE
Nope. Mike Bloomberg... multi-billionaiere... off the rack suits... $12.00 haircuts. Probably orders from the Chinese take-out. Emphatically no to taxing the uber-wealthy consumption as a way to revenue. Those people don't consume anywhere proportionate to their wealth, or income for that matter.
the top50% of ALL EARNERS paid 97% of all income taxes
how much more do you want
btw when JFK and reagan lowered the rates the closed many of the loopholes so EFFECTIVLY the rich may be paying alower rate, but are actually paying MORE
Can I have some of what you're smoking? FWIW, I agree with some of your later posts ... the tax brackets need to be looked at. $250,000 is really NOTHING in today's world. Although they got the brackets to balance the budget back in the 1920's, they were not smart enough back then to rig the brackets to be in line with inflation. But if you think the top 1% should be immune from helping with this mess, I REALLY disagree?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you
are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of
the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when
I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
.
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.
(or pay part of this shared sacrifice, it seems)
