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.
Funny, as when the top bracket was 91%; your doomsday scenario didn't happen.....
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is spouting nonsense.
I am not saying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is deliberately fooling you - she strikes me as a highly ignorant individual who has built a political career not on brain power but charisma combined with promising people free stuff from other people's money.
She is constantly factually wrong anytime she talks numbers.
If you add federal, state, and local taxes...the top 1% paid a similar effective rate in the 1950s (42%) as they do today (36.4%). Plus there are lots of little taxes that don't get scooped into those numbers that didn't exist in the 1950s or are bigger today...taxes for cable, taxes on your phone bill for 911, gas taxes, etc...
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is spouting nonsense.
I am not saying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is deliberately fooling you - she strikes me as a highly ignorant individual who has built a political career not on brain power but charisma combined with promising people free stuff from other people's money.
She is constantly factually wrong anytime she talks numbers.
If you add federal, state, and local taxes...the top 1% paid a similar effective rate in the 1950s (42%) as they do today (36.4%). Plus there are lots of little taxes that don't get scooped into those numbers that didn't exist in the 1950s or are bigger today...taxes for cable, taxes on your phone bill for 911, gas taxes, etc...
Do you know that one of those "loopholes" was reinvesting profits back into the company? That's what I'm getting at
A. I think they are BSing
B. They aren't at the level that would be affected by this 70% bracket if they in fact are here
I am considered "wealthy". I am a "1%er" and have fairly substantial assets.
However, I don't consider myself "wealthy"; I would say that the actual "wealthy" people have $50 + million in assets. Below that, you could easily blow/lose everything and that amount of wealth does not guarantee wealth to the next generation.
I still work, as I like to do so (physician) and really need the healthcare (can't buy a policy due to two cancers). I can't buy a policy for any price. So.............................. people who are "wealthy" still work for a variety of reasons. Boredom is another. Although I have several hobbies, I don't think I could keep busy 12-14 hours a day without work.
I'm looking into working at the VA, as you can get Blue Cross Federal for life after five years, so I could actually retire. However, I would probably do a much easier, lower paying job if there was a 70% tax rate (as long as it had health insurance).
Although I am only 7 years from Medicare, I know that offices and hospitals discriminate against medicare patients compared to good paying, private insurance patients (Large hospital systems say they do this). As such, I want to remain "at the front of the line" if my cancers return for treatment.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with 70% IF it was confined to the super rich - let's say 1/2 million $ of income annually and above, and IF it was used to pay down the debt.
But of course it won't be used for debt reduction -- the democrats will merely find other ways to waste the money.
The middle class doesn't pay 35%. If one describes the middle class as the top 10-25% (annual income: $81,921 to $139,713), they pay an average effective federal income tax rate of 10.71%. The top 25%-50% (annual income: $40,078 to $80,920) pays an annual effective federal income tax rate of 7.81%.
The top 1% (minimum income: $480,804) pays an average effective federal income tax rate of 26.87%
The top 0.1% (minimum income: $2,124,117) pays 27.05%
And that includes the taxes on capital gains.
See the difference? The people you would consider rich are paying, on average, nearly 3 to 3.5 times the effective tax rate the middle class pays.
It's hard to be sympathetic to the rich. They are in the same bracket as the middle class on the middle class income. As you know, the top tax bracket today is 37%, so those rich folks are not paying taxes on a whole lot of income.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with 70% IF it was confined to the super rich - let's say 1/2 million $ of income annually and above, and IF it was used to pay down the debt.
But of course it won't be used for debt reduction -- the democrats will merely find other ways to waste the money.
$500,000 per year is not "super wealthy", not by a long shot.
$1,000,000 per year is not "super wealthy".
"Super wealthy" is being able to live off fixed interest from savings at a level at which you can afford to buy whatever you want for the rest of your life without budgeting or worrying about running out of money.
Again, I would say that "threshold" is about $50 million.
Also, keep in mind it is easy to "demand" and vote for tax increases that don't effect you personally. Most people vote for tax increases on "other people", not themselves. No one wants to pay the bills that need to be paid.
The third discusses PERCENTAGES OF INCOME paid via sales taxes and property taxes. Obviously, given that expenditures on food and household goods will be roughly the same for higher and lower income groups, sales taxes will take a larger percentage "bite" out of lower income households. The only way to change that would be to force grocery stores to give away free food to the lowest 1/4 income groups. In effect, that is already done via payment with foodstamps. So paying "sales tax" with money you get for free anyway is not a very honest representation of taxes paid.
I sincerely doubt lower income groups spend the same amount on food and household goods that higher income groups do. Think about it... for example... Tuna casserole vs. white truffles. A Kenmore range vs. a Viking. A Kenmore refrigerator vs. a Sub-Zero. Etc.
Quote:
Further, the metric of a house being 3-4X one's income may be true for lower incomes, but not higher incomes. Therefore, property taxes will be relatively higher for the poor (if they own their homes).
They won't be higher. They're flat rate, so for example, those who own less valuable homes (2 bedroom 1,200 sq ft ranch) will be paying less than someone who has a 6 bedroom, 5,000 sq ft home.
Quote:
Lastly, more wealthy people who own businesses and agricultures (which actually employs people), will have more business deductions. Without those deductions, "the poor" would not have jobs.
That is true. That's why business deductions have to remain in the tax code.
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.
