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 putting a high tax rate on the rich does is it controls where the economy grows. It grows the middle class. That is good for everyone including the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2
Gladly.
Here is a geometric proof.
Economic growth happens where the taxes are the lowest. A high tax rate limits growth. A high tax rate on the top end limits growth on the top end. A lower tax rate on the middle allows more growth there. As the economy grows the rich don’t benefit as much from it as do the poor. http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html if you look there is a graph of the growth rate in income. There is a discontinuity at about 1981. The growth on the top end goes up and on the middle and bottom end it goes down. This corresponds to the instigation of supply side economic.
Starting from where we are now the increase in wealth of the middle class that would come with a high tax rate on the top end would be as a result of the hard work of the middle class. Not from taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor. It controls where the economy grows. It does not take wealth from one group and give it to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newonecoming2
The feds printing press is trying to make the pie bigger. A high tax rate limits growth. so as the pie grows bigger the top won't grow as fast as the middle.
The pie is getting smaller because the top has stated taking money from the middle class as aposed to just limiting its growth.
You are not taking into account a lot of other factors for income inequality. The banking system, our land system, corporate charters and most of all technological revolutions all play bigger roles than tax rates..
As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, 20% of the 75 wealthiest individuals in the world’s history were all born between 1831 and 1840. Were they rich due to the tax code? No, it was due to the massive growth of the 1860's and 70’s, those who were at the right age, at the right time, with the right skills made massive amounts of wealth. http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt1.html
The same thing happened in the Tech revolution. The wealthiest tech giants were born between 1953-1957. They were the right age, at the right time with the right skills and luck.
Taxes were a byproduct. Just as the wealth created in the 20's due to autos and other gadgets made a few very wealthy, the same happened in the 80's and 90's. The next trend will be a flattening of wealth as those technologies become less economically stimulating for the few. Unless we due something stupid like raise taxes on the affluent in hopes that the carpet bomb approach to tax policy will hurt the truly wealthy.
You are not taking into account a lot of other factors for income inequality. The banking system, our land system, corporate charters and most of all technological revolutions all play bigger roles than tax rates..
As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, 20% of the 75 wealthiest individuals in the world’s history were all born between 1831 and 1840. Were they rich due to the tax code? No, it was due to the massive growth of the 1860's and 70’s, those who were at the right age, at the right time, with the right skills made massive amounts of wealth. http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt1.html
The same thing happened in the Tech revolution. The wealthiest tech giants were born between 1953-1957. They were the right age, at the right time with the right skills and luck.
Taxes were a byproduct. Just as the wealth created in the 20's due to autos and other gadgets made a few very wealthy, the same happened in the 80's and 90's. The next trend will be a flattening of wealth as those technologies become less economically stimulating for the few. Unless we due something stupid like raise taxes on the affluent in hopes that the carpet bomb approach to tax policy will hurt the truly wealthy.
What was the top tax rate in the 1860’ and ‘70’s OH ya we didn’t have a top tax rate as income wasn’t taxed. What was the top tax rate in the tech revolution? 28% ? If you look at the middle class explosion post WWII the top tax rate was 90%. During the post WWII boom time we had the world’s richest middle class ever. How many people got really wealthy during that time? I don’t want to hurt the really wealthy I want to grow the middle class. A high tax rate is on income. It isn’t on existing wealth. If you are really rich I don’t want to take your money. I do want to stop you from taking money out of the middle class.
What was the top tax rate in the 1860’ and ‘70’s OH ya we didn’t have a top tax rate as income wasn’t taxed. What was the top tax rate in the tech revolution? 28% ? If you look at the middle class explosion post WWII the top tax rate was 90%. During the post WWII boom time we had the world’s richest middle class ever. How many people got really wealthy during that time? I don’t want to hurt the really wealthy I want to grow the middle class. A high tax rate is on income. It isn’t on existing wealth. If you are really rich I don’t want to take your money. I do want to stop you from taking money out of the middle class.
You are trying to use a simple causation for something that has many other factors. The 1920's had a massive increase in wealth, yet the top rate was over 70%. The 80's had a top rate of 50% until 1987 when it went down to 38.5% and it was only 28% for 88-90, in 91 it went back up to 31% until was increased again in 93 where it remained at 39.6% for the rest of the decade. This is when computers went mainstream and wealth really escalated.
Again, you are trying to mix wealth, which grows due to asset growth no matter what tax rates are, with high income. Bill Gates does not care what income tax rates are, he has over 580 million shares of Microsoft, if he needs cash, he sells shares that were purchased higher and he gets a loss, so he sells gainers to offset the loss, no tax. Or he gives low basis stock to his charitable trust, gets a deduction, and sells the stock in the trust (no tax) takes an income off the trust that gets offset by the deduction. Do you think he ever once cared what the income tax rate was?
Taxes only affect those of us who rely on income to survive, so a person who keeps earning more income, plows money back in his business or investments in order for the value of that asset to grow, is the one hurt. If he or she has less income to invest or grow, the asset value does not grow as fast as the truly wealthy. Do you really think the ultra wealthy say they are for higher taxes because they want to help the nation? Please.
You are trying to use a simple causation for something that has many other factors. The 1920's had a massive increase in wealth, yet the top rate was over 70%. The 80's had a top rate of 50% until 1987 when it went down to 38.5% and it was only 28% for 88-90, in 91 it went back up to 31% until was increased again in 93 where it remained at 39.6% for the rest of the decade. This is when computers went mainstream and wealth really escalated.
Again, you are trying to mix wealth, which grows due to asset growth no matter what tax rates are, with high income. Bill Gates does not care what income tax rates are, he has over 580 million shares of Microsoft, if he needs cash, he sells shares that were purchased higher and he gets a loss, so he sells gainers to offset the loss, no tax. Or he gives low basis stock to his charitable trust, gets a deduction, and sells the stock in the trust (no tax) takes an income off the trust that gets offset by the deduction. Do you think he ever once cared what the income tax rate was?
Taxes only affect those of us who rely on income to survive, so a person who keeps earning more income, plows money back in his business or investments in order for the value of that asset to grow, is the one hurt. If he or she has less income to invest or grow, the asset value does not grow as fast as the truly wealthy. Do you really think the ultra wealthy say they are for higher taxes because they want to help the nation? Please.
That money put back in the business is a write off.
What was the top tax rate in the 1860’ and ‘70’s OH ya we didn’t have a top tax rate as income wasn’t taxed. What was the top tax rate in the tech revolution? 28% ? If you look at the middle class explosion post WWII the top tax rate was 90%. During the post WWII boom time we had the world’s richest middle class ever. How many people got really wealthy during that time? I don’t want to hurt the really wealthy I want to grow the middle class. A high tax rate is on income. It isn’t on existing wealth. If you are really rich I don’t want to take your money. I do want to stop you from taking money out of the middle class.
ok yes in the 1950's the top rate was 90%
BUT
it was on income (and ONLY income..not capitol gains) of over 400k of 1950's dollars.....in today's dollars that would be over 3 million
and
when they lovered the rates to more REASONABLE levels..they closed the gaps..loopholes..the rich actually pay MORE now then back then....
you cant grow the middleclass until you get the fed to stop its phoney inflation
just look costs compared to salrys just in the last 40 years....and it has NOTHING to due with taxing
depends on what you want to rate things by
the average yearly income 1970......$9,350
the average yearly income 2010......$49,770
average price of a house..1970...$23,000
average price of a house..2010...$235,000
average price of gas....1970........$. 36
avergae price of gas..2010.........$3.00
average mid size american car..1970........$3100
average mid size american car...2010......$28,000
average price of a movie ticket..1970....$1.55
average price of a movie ticket..2010.....$10
as you can see movies increased 10 fold (10 times)....gas about 10 times....cars about 9 times...houses over 10 times...yet incomes only 5.3 times
just look at the "3lb" can of coffee....10 years ago it was actuay 3lbs...and cost about $3...today its 2lb2.5oz and is costing $7-9...so it want from a dollar a pound to over two dollars a pound in less than 10 years....yet the government will say we dont have any inflation
that is what is killing the middleclass..and its not taxes
Last edited by workingclasshero; 02-24-2011 at 11:12 AM..
it was on income (and ONLY income..not capitol gains) of over 400k of 1950's dollars.....in today's dollars that would be over 3 million
and
when they lovered the rates to more REASONABLE levels..they closed the gaps..loopholes..the rich actually pay MORE now then back then....
you cant grow the middleclass until you get the fed to stop its phoney inflation
just look costs compared to salrys just in the last 40 years....and it has NOTHING to due with taxing
Anyone remember $1000 dollar RCA VCR's or $200 PONG video games?
depends on what you want to rate things by
the average yearly income 1970......$9,350
the average yearly income 2010......$49,770
average price of a house..1970...$23,000
average price of a house..2010...$235,000
average price of gas....1970........$. 36
avergae price of gas..2010.........$3.00
average mid size american car..1970........$3100
average mid size american car...2010......$28,000
average price of a movie ticket..1970....$1.55
average price of a movie ticket..2010.....$10
as you can see movies increased 10 fold (10 times)....gas about 10 times....cars about 9 times...houses over 10 times...yet incomes only 5.3 times
just look at the "3lb" can of coffee....10 years ago it was actuay 3lbs...and cost about $3...today its 2lb2.5oz and is costing $7-9...so it want from a dollar a pound to over two dollars a pound in less than 10 years....yet the government will say we dont have any inflation
that is what is killing the middleclass..and its not taxes
On the other hand some things have greatly decreased...
In 1973 I bought a Texas Instruments calculator the had 4 functions and percent... I paid $117 dollars for it... today, a calculator with more functions in nearly free... the dollar store has them for a dollar.
The first digital watches were over a thousand dollars and now McDonald's gives them away with a happy meal.
My Apple II computer with 64k, printer and two floppy drives totaled around $3,000 and throw away cell phones have more memory today.
Just saying that not everything has increased...
I dare say it is easy to find Detroit Real Estate selling for less today than in the 1970's...
One of my colleagues describes the times we live in as everything I want is cheaper and everything I need is more expensive.
On the other hand some things have greatly decreased...
In 1973 I bought a Texas Instruments calculator the had 4 functions and percent... I paid $117 dollars for it... today, a calculator with more functions in nearly free... the dollar store has them for a dollar.
The first digital watches were over a thousand dollars and now McDonald's gives them away with a happy meal.
My Apple II computer with 64k, printer and two floppy drives totaled around $3,000 and throw away cell phones have more memory today.
Just saying that not everything has increased...
I dare say it is easy to find Detroit Real Estate selling for less today than in the 1970's...
One of my colleagues describes the times we live in as everything I want is cheaper and everything I need is more expensive.
Homes for sale in Detroit.....
They are HUD homes...guess who will be the losers.....yep...the taxpayers.
If we tax the Millionaires and billionaires as I hear said all time, how much would it help? This is similar to a congressional study done about 20 years ago but I’ll update the numbers.
Let’s assume that once someone makes more than $1,000,000 in a year we tax them at 100% back to dollar one, meaning they take home zero for the year.
How much of our national debt and annual deficit would that eliminate in year one. (current deficit about 1.6 Trillion, Debt $14 trillion)
How much in year two?
Please give your best guess before reading the spoiler.
Year one savings.
Spoiler
About $700 billion more would be raised, so our deficit would still be $900 billion
Year two...
Spoiler
Do you really think anyone would earn more than $999,999 after just getting 100% of their income takin the year before?
WTF? It's called the ****ing marginal tax rate.
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.
