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.
Rich people pay the highest effective tax rate.
Of course, there is a very small % of the rich that pay a lower effective rate based on how they are compensated, but they account for a small fraction of the top 1%.
Income inequality is a natural state of most economies. Government, in the form of the New Deal and the GI Bill, contributed to the creation of the middle class, more so than anything else.
The U.S. has now surpassed Uganda in terms of income inequality, beyond the tipping point and it's destroying democracy.
So how does that middle manager making $250K a year put more burden on the infrastructure ?
He may not, on a personal level, but the business he is a middle manager for (and thus, allowing him to get fairly wealthy) sure is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5
That is fantastic! So, nothing needs to change since the "wealthy" already pay the highest effective rate and the vast majority of taxes collected. Win/Win...Komrade
First, I love how any mention of even the possibility of raising taxes brings hints of socialism/communism. It's as funny as it is stupid. Oh, and it's "comrade"...with a "C".
Second, your point is...well you don't really have a point. The fact that the wealthy have the highest tax rate doesn't mean jack if the rate isn't high enough.
He may not, on a personal level, but the business he is a middle manager for (and thus, allowing him to get fairly wealthy) sure is.
First, I love how any mention of even the possibility of raising taxes brings hints of socialism/communism. It's as funny as it is stupid. Oh, and it's "comrade"...with a "C".
Second, your point is...well you don't really have a point. The fact that the wealthy have the highest tax rate doesn't mean jack if the rate isn't high enough.
so you want to tax him more to account for what the company he works for does ?
That doesn't sound fair. Why not tax the company itself ?
I know..it's not how much they pay, it's how much they get to keep and they keep too much as it is now.
I totally get it.
So rather than bicker over how much they should pay, bicker over how much you think they should keep.
He may not, on a personal level, but the business he is a middle manager for (and thus, allowing him to get fairly wealthy) sure is.
First, I love how any mention of even the possibility of raising taxes brings hints of socialism/communism. It's as funny as it is stupid. Oh, and it's "comrade"...with a "C".
Second, your point is...well you don't really have a point. The fact that the wealthy have the highest tax rate doesn't mean jack if the rate isn't high enough.
Got to love the stupidity implication....Lib rule #1 attack first, even when you are wrong.
So, let me ask you, since you are the expert, how much is enough? I will take into consideration that your figure will err to the high side since you are a taker, not a producer
Got to love the stupidity implication....Lib rule #1 attack first, even when you are wrong.
Well first off you'd do good to know to that you're talking to an independent, moderate, split ticket voter here, so your "lib" remarks aren't going to work. Second, yes, any implication that the simple act of increases taxes moves us towards socialism or communism is, on its face, stupid.
Quote:
So, let me ask you, since you are the expert, how much is enough? I will take into consideration that your figure will err to the high side since you are a taker, not a producer
Wait, weren't you just bitching about people going on the attack, "even when you are wrong?" How could you have the slightest clue of whether I am a taker or producer, save for some hilariously misguided stereotypes you've seemingly formed based on political positions...of which you got mine wrong?
As for the rate, that is debatable. Personally, I'd go back to the rates we had under Bill Clinton (possibly keeping the middle class tax cuts) and go from there. It's entirely possible that would be enough to solve the issue, but if not we could make further adjustments.
I think that some of the people here that are against higher taxes for the wealthy have forgotten (or are unaware) that we once had high taxes on the wealthy and it was very effective. During the 1950s and 1960s, we had a top income tax of 90%. During this time, our country had a very strong middle class. Unfortunately, when those top taxes decreased, income inequality increased, thus decreasing our nation's once thriving middle class.
The problem I see with many of today's Republican voters is that any type of tax increase is viewed as evil and scary. The Fox News/Limbaugh/Beck machine has effectively convinced many people that tax increases on the wealthy will result in some type of financial calamity but history has shown us otherwise. Even their golden boy Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
I'm so sick of hearing Republicans make claims that anyone supporting higher taxes for the wealthy want some kind of a handout from the rich. Such BS! While that may be true of a small fraction of our society, the truth is that the majority of people just want a fair tax structure that allows the middle class to stay afloat. We're not bitter than some people are rich... we just want the rich to be accountable and contribute their fair share.
When the top tax rates were high from 1950 to 1978, income levels for Americans at all levels grew at a steady pace for all income groups (hence, the reason we had a strong middle class). It wasn't until the 1980s when the Progressive tax structure disappeared that this changed.
Since this all ties in, which of today's two major political party does this sound like?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Everybody cries the Poverty line when it comes to paying their fair share.
How rich or poor are you
Here's a realistic model - William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005 (yearly income - individual)
Lower Class under 16,000 ---20 percent of population
Working Class 16,000,000 to 30,,000 ---32 percent of pop
Lower Middle Class 35,,000 to 75,,000 ---32 percent of pop
Upper Middle Class over 100,000 ---15 percent of pop
Upper Class 500,000 and above THE ONE PERCENT CLUB
I think that some of the people here that are against higher taxes for the wealthy have forgotten (or are unaware) that we once had high taxes on the wealthy and it was very effective. During the 1950s and 1960s, we had a top income tax of 90%. During this time, our country had a very strong middle class. Unfortunately, when those top taxes decreased, income inequality increased, thus decreasing our nation's once thriving middle class.
but you also forget that those were FAR different times than today. for instance up until the late 60s the US was THE manufacturer for the world. today that is china and india, with vietnam up and coming. also up until the 60s we didnt have all the regulations on business that we have now.
Quote:
The problem I see with many of today's Republican voters is that any type of tax increase is viewed as evil and scary. The Fox News/Limbaugh/Beck machine has effectively convinced many people that tax increases on the wealthy will result in some type of financial calamity but history has shown us otherwise. Even their golden boy Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
not a calamity, but it will slow the economy down, and that will hurt the middle class. also remember that if you raise taxes on business, those costs get passed on to the consumer, and that means higher prices, and/or lower employment.
Quote:
we just want the rich to be accountable and contribute their fair share.
ok, given the fact that the top one percent pay 38% of the taxes collected by the IRS, and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes collected by the IRS, and the top 50% pay 97% of the taxes collected by the IRS, what do you consider a "fair share"? how much more do you want the rich to pay? if you look at the reality, back as late as the carter years, the top 1% paid 19% of the taxes collected, which means that today the tax burden on the top 1% is HIGHER now than even 1980. and the tax burden on the poor is LOWER than 1980. so what is the "fair share" for the rich?
Quote:
When the top tax rates were high from 1950 to 1978, income levels for Americans at all levels grew at a steady pace for all income groups (hence, the reason we had a strong middle class). It wasn't until the 1980s when the Progressive tax structure disappeared that this changed.
the progressive tax structure has NOT disappeared. and also understand that there are mitigating circumstances for this income and wealth inequality, things like corporations have gone global in scope and the CEOs job is that much more complex in dealing with regulations not just in this country, and in a number of countries. also note that a lot of people have gone from an hourly wage to a commission, and as such those that put in the effort make more money. we have to deal with globalization, and as such we have to set up a tax and regulatory structure in this country that allows business to be competitive to those in other countries. if we dont we lose, if we do, we win. right now we are losing to other countries.
Quote:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
since when have republicans wanted to get rid of the bolded section? we want to REFORM them so that they are around for future generations.
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.
