Nope, revenue has been slashed over and over since the 50s. Top tax rate was over 90 when Ike was president. 70s during JFK and a fraction of that now. Corporate taxes have been slashed too. That is why we have a wealth gap that is able to threaten the American system Money=power. You may not recognize it ,but the wealthy are exerting their wealth and power. Look at Fox and Sinclair for recent examples. Things are going great for those on top.
Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Nope, revenue has been slashed over and over since the 50s. Top tax rate was over 90 when Ike was president. 70s during JFK and a fraction of that now. Corporate taxes have been slashed too. That is why we have a wealth gap that is able to threaten the American system Money=power. You may not recognize it ,but the wealthy are exerting their wealth and power. Look at Fox and Sinclair for recent examples. Things are going great for those on top.
Nope. Look at federal revenues as a percent of GDP since WWII. It has average 17.9% with a range of 14.4% to 20.9% no matter the tax rate.
But who is paying it. The wealthy are getting tax breaks over and over and corporations too. The wealthy are paying a slice of what they did. The gap is worse than the Gilded Age.
No, completely the opposite. The share of federal income taxes paid by the wealthy has steadily increased. Think about it--as their share of national income has increased so is their share of federal taxes.
In 1979 the top 20% paid 55.2% of all federal income taxes and by 2013 they paid 69%. The top 1% paid 14.2% of all federal income taxes in 1979 and 25.4% in 2013.
In 1979 the top 1% paid an average federal income tax rate of 22.6% and by 2013 it was 23.6%.
There are billionaires in America scratching their heads and wondering, "How do these assholes continue to support us...even though we are pissing on them?"
NEVER HAVE SO FEW OWED SO MUCH TO SO MANY! (The "so many" being the American conservative suckers.)
NEVER HAVE SO FEW OWED SO MUCH TO SO MANY! (The "so many" being the American conservative suckers.)
Half those billionaires are Democrats and half are Republicans. Who else is there to support.
Once more. The fact that the wealthy are paying a larger portion of all revenue, while getting their tax rates cut, only indicates that they have all the damn money. I smaller percentage is huge amount because they are so damn rich.
Flash, my comment had to do with WHO supports the billionaires.
If you think the Democratic base supports the very wealthy in equal proportion to the Republican base...you are dreaming.
The Democratic base mostly support Democratic candidates...and Democratic candidates are less likely to support legislation that benefits the wealthy at cost to the less fortunate...than Republican candidates.
Conversely, the Republican base mostly support Republican candidates...and Republican candidates are more likely to support legislation that benefits the wealthy at cost to the less fortunate...than Democratic candidates.
The recently enacted tax cuts...which predominantly favor the very wealth over the less fortunate...is an example. And look how the party votes went on that!
If you want to play games with that...go for it. I'll mostly just sit back and laugh.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Just because the rich are paying a larger portion of the revenue does not mean they are paying enough.
If the rich were paying enough, there would be no deficit.
If the rich were paying enough, there would be no deficit.
Agreed. I never suggested they didn't have enough money or that they needed a tax cut. I was just disagreeing with your statement that the wealthy are paying a smaller share of taxes than past years. Some people argue we should increase taxes on the wealthy because the "middle class pays all the taxes," the wealthy "do not pay their fair share," the wealthy "don't pay any taxes because of all the loopholes," etc. I don't want to base policy on inaccurate informatin.
Just because a person has more than enough money does not mean government should take it away from them--it doesn't help those at the bottom.
Having a deficit should not determine how much is "enough" but whether all that deficit spending is necessary.
DBCooper
Verified User
How does one begin to answer such an idiotic question. I'm guessing the OP is a simpleton. Individuals should all be taxes at the same rate. Its only fair. Why penalize someone who has done well for themselves?
Boris The Animal
It's Just Boris!
So what is your rate? 100% sorry, but Communism has failed miserably and won't work here in the US.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Actually it helps everyone.
It is not a matter of 'government taking money away from people.' That is a view which paints the rich as victims of over-taxation. It's victimhood. That is the view of the rich who would like to pay less taxes.
What of the nation? Why not consider the view of the nation as a whole? Why should the nation be short-changed? Why operate on credit and force the debt upon our descendants? Why are we asking the children of our nation to pay for what we spent?
The nation has bills and it needs income. The income is not as much as the bills. We can't make the bills vanish, so there needs to be more income. The poor and the middle are already giving everything they can in taxes. The only way for the government to get enough to pay the bills is to tax the rich more.
Actually it helps everyone.
It is not a matter of 'government taking money away from people.' That is a view which paints the rich as victims of over-taxation. It's victimhood. That is the view of the rich who would like to pay less taxes.
What of the nation? Why not consider the view of the nation as a whole? Why should the nation be short-changed? Why operate on credit and force the debt upon our descendants? Why are we asking the children of our nation to pay for what we spent?
The nation has bills and it needs income. The income is not as much as the bills. We can't make the bills vanish, so there needs to be more income. The poor and the middle are already giving everything they can in taxes. The only way for the government to get enough to pay the bills is to tax the rich more.
cawacko
Well-known member
The
That "government spending helps everyone" is a very subjective statement. To the point about the future that would entail less spending.
That is not the view of most of the rich. Money going to the government could better be spent by consumers. You are right that income is not as much as the bills. When that happens to me I reduce my bills. It would be much easier if I had as much waste as government. Just because a program is designed to help some group does not mean it is doing so successfully or efficiently.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
It is naive to think we can run the national budget as if it were a personal budget. They are completely different animals.
You referenced government waste. Welcome to the real world. It is ludicrous to expect that any government can be run without waste. If we want to be realistic, we must accept that there is going to be some waste. We do what we can to control it, but we know we will always have some.
You inferred that an area of government waste is found in poverty assistance programs. You are correct. What is incorrect is wanting to reduce those programs because they have predictable waste. That makes a much sense as saying there is dirt on the street so we shouldn't build any more streets.
National budgeting is different than personal budgeting for many reasons. A nation goes on indefinitely, builds wealth indefinitely. Individuals die. A human has only one lifetime in which to earn wealth, and typically begins with zero. A nation outlasts human lives and builds wealth for hundreds of years - as long as it lasts. Nations have economic controls. A nation is not trying to build a nestegg for retirement. Humans don't sell bonds on themselves. Nobody invests in a human while believing it is the most secure investment available. A human cannot carry debt indefinitely. A nation can. Nations don't stop working when they reach retirement.
It is naive to think we can run the national budget as if it were a personal budget. They are completely different animals.
You referenced government waste. Welcome to the real world. It is ludicrous to expect that any government can be run without waste. If we want to be realistic, we must accept that there is going to be some waste. We do what we can to control it, but we know we will always have some.
You inferred that an area of government waste is found in poverty assistance programs. You are correct. What is incorrect is wanting to reduce those programs because they have predictable waste. That makes a much sense as saying there is dirt on the street so we shouldn't build any more streets.
National budgeting is different than personal budgeting for many reasons. A nation goes on indefinitely, builds wealth indefinitely. Individuals die. A human has only one lifetime in which to earn wealth, and typically begins with zero. A nation outlasts human lives and builds wealth for hundreds of years - as long as it lasts. Nations have economic controls. A nation is not trying to build a nestegg for retirement. Humans don't sell bonds on themselves. Nobody invests in a human while believing it is the most secure investment available. A human cannot carry debt indefinitely. A nation can. Nations don't stop working when they reach retirement.
One other thing: A lot of that "waste" takes the form of salaries to people who need salaries in order to live. What they do with those salaries is TO SPEND THEM ON GOODS AND SERVICES...which advances the economy.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
Exactly. From the way some conservatives talk, you would get the idea they think once taxes are paid that the money is then destroyed, never to re-enter the economy again. As if it all goes up in smoke.
No. That's wrong thinking.
Some even say the government 'profits' from taxes. Ridiculous. The government is not in business and earns no profits. Tax money collected is used to run the government. That means most of it is being used to pay people to do work. All those people are part of the economy. They buy food, services, usually a house, raise kids, buy all the things they need with their paychecks which were once paid into the government as taxes. All the things they buy contribute to the economy. Non-government workers had to make, transport, and sell those things. That's the secondary effect.
On the other hand, if the rich are allowed to pay lower taxes, they keep more of their money. Since the rich already have everything they need, they are unlikely to go right out and spend the windfall of tax cuts. Instead they will probably just invest more. Do those investments contribute to the economy as much as consumer spending? No. If they buy enough stock, the corporation often will simply use that investment for a stock buy-back, or executive pay raises, bonuses, and perks.
It is better for the economy to keep the taxes on the rich high than it is to cut government spending.
Exactly. From the way some conservatives talk, you would get the idea they think once taxes are paid that the money is then destroyed, never to re-enter the economy again. As if it all goes up in smoke.
No. That's wrong thinking.
Some even say the government 'profits' from taxes. Ridiculous. The government is not in business and earns no profits. Tax money collected is used to run the government. That means most of it is being used to pay people to do work. All those people are part of the economy. They buy food, services, usually a house, raise kids, buy all the things they need with their paychecks which were once paid into the government as taxes. All the things they buy contribute to the economy. Non-government workers had to make, transport, and sell those things. That's the secondary effect.
On the other hand, if the rich are allowed to pay lower taxes, they keep more of their money. Since the rich already have everything they need, they are unlikely to go right out and spend the windfall of tax cuts. Instead they will probably just invest more. Do those investments contribute to the economy as much as consumer spending? No. If they buy enough stock, the corporation often will simply use that investment for a stock buy-back, or executive pay raises, bonuses, and perks.
It is better for the economy to keep the taxes on the rich high than it is to cut government spending.
Irish Exit
Verified User
With the upper class though, a lot of that consumption is in stocks which are bought "used" if you will so the money they spend it on doesn't go to new goods and services. Heck, with a lot of not upper class the same thing is true because of 401K's, IRA's etc.