59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

[Getin the ring]

I never said anything to this effect, and I don't know how you're coming to these numbers.

All I said was that contrary to what you claim, raising taxes has never once reduced revenue. Never. Not once. And that when Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy, revenues grew more in that one year than they ever had before.

However, there is plenty of empirical and enumerated data that shows cutting taxes reduces revenue, and we can see that plainly in revenue from 2001-2004, four years of Bush Tax Cuts where the revenue collected was less than in the year 2000.

and I guess this is where you go find the post where I ever said raising taxes reduces revenue, that would be a stupid thing to say, doesn't even make sense.
Why do you create arguments in your head? you're triggered, slow down.

I'm simply saying that raising taxes, my taxes makes no sense, as if the government would spend the money wisely if we only gave them more? Are you insane?

and B. on my point you said in your post that by raising the top income bracket up another 4.5% we could generate another 325 billion, that's what you wrote, EXACTLY what you typed.
So show me where there is an extra 8 trillion from (10xmillionaires) X 4.5% =325 billion

that's the thing about math, it's not really up for debate, is it?

 

[LV426]

21.9% is lower than 24%

Should be noted that their effective tax rate is higher because they've seen all the income gains over the last 40 years.

So they pay a higher effective rate because they have more income that is being taxed.

So all you've done here is articulate, using the effective tax rate, that the wealthy have enjoyed all the gains of 40 years of trickle down and thus, should have to pay a higher marginal rate which will increase their effective rate even more.

That's the price that should be paid for hoarding all the income gains and not trickling them down.

 

[Flash]

Well your recollection is really fucking shaky pal, and also, aren't those deductions still in effect?

So you said before that prior to 1980 no one paid the top tax rate because of "deductions".

You can't say what deductions, you just know it to be true because...because...it confirms your bias.

No, those deductions are not still in effect--who is doing your taxes?? I used to deduct the interest from my credit cards, car loan, personal loans.

Why would you want to raise rates to 70% when 39.6% raises more (or as much) revenue, the wealthy pay a larger share of all federal taxes, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income on federal income taxes, and we have almost eliminated all income taxes on the bottom 40%?

 

[LV426]

and I guess this is where you go find the post where I ever said raising taxes reduces revenue, that would be a stupid thing to say, doesn't even make sense

OMFG.

Stop.

All you people are arguing for the last 40 years was that raising taxes on the rich would result in less revenue collected.

Don't fucking try and disassociate from that now, that you've been shown how fucking dumb it is.

 

[LV426]

I'm simply saying that raising taxes, my taxes makes no sense, as if the government would spend the money wisely if we only gave them more? Are you insan

That is your position now, but it wasn't your position before.

All you people would argue is that raising taxes would reduce revenues, would expand the deficit, would kill jobs, and would (laughably) kill the desire for people to earn more money.

That's what you've been arguing.

NOW you're trying to say that isn't what you've been arguing, when that is all you've been arguing.

STOP.

ENOUGH.

 

[Flash]

Should be noted that their effective tax rate is higher because they've seen all the income gains over the last 40 years.

So they pay a higher effective rate because they have more income that is being taxed.

I don't think you understand taxes.

Once you are paying the highest tax rate you don't pay a higher income tax rate because your income increases. If I am in the 39.6% rate and my income doubles from $20 million to $100 million, I don't pay a higher rate on that additional income. I am already at the top rate.

 

[Getin the ring]

OMFG.

Stop.

All you people are arguing for the last 40 years was that raising taxes on the rich would result in less revenue collected.

Don't fucking try and disassociate from that now, that you've been shown how fucking dumb it is.

there's the problem...

you don't know me nut-bag

if you want to admit you are all for raising everyone taxes, now's the time

otherwise fuzzy math boy

 

[LV426]

and B. on my point you said in your post that by raising the top income bracket up another 4.5% we could generate another 325 billion, that's what you wrote, EXACTLY what you typed.

NOPE!

NOT WHAT I WROTE!

What I wrote was that when we raised the top bracket back to 39.6%, the Treasury collected an additional $325B in revenues, which was the single highest yearly gain ever.

Like your previous arguments that crashed and burned, you're trying to shift the goalposts just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

ENOUGH.

 

[LV426]

No, those deductions are not still in effect--who is doing your taxes?? I used to deduct the interest from my credit cards, car loan, personal loans.

Your argument was that the wealthy used those deductions -that you have yet to actually confirm- to avoid paying the top 70% rate.

That's not true, is it?

It's something you just said -without any proof or evidence- off the cuff, hoping it would be enough to paper over the massive factual and rhetorical deficits that exist in your argument. That are inherent flaws in your argument.

You all said, and not just you but cawacko, Getin, RB60, that there were these ambiguous "deductions" and "loopholes" that the rich used to avoid paying the top rate. I asked for just one example and none of you could come up with one.

The best you could do is a vague recollection that I'm not 100% confident you are being truthful about.

 

[Getin the ring]

NOPE!

NOT WHAT I WROTE!

What I wrote was that when we raised the top bracket back to 39.6%, the Treasury collected an additional $325B in revenues, which was the single highest yearly gain ever.

Like your previous arguments that crashed and burned, you're trying to shift the goalposts just so you don't have to admit you're full of shit.

ENOUGH.

so what do you attribute the additional 325 billion to,
let me guess, raising the 35% top shelf bracket to 39.5%

So that found another 8 trillion in income to tax an additional 4.5%=325 billion?
which is impossible

you don't like math do you?

I'm beginning to think you don't know what in the sam hell you're talking about. you're confusing yourself

 

[LV426]

Why would you want to raise rates to 70% when 39.6% raises more (or as much) revenue, the wealthy pay a larger share of all federal taxes, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income on federal income taxes, and we have almost eliminated all income taxes on the bottom 40%?

Does it raise as much revenue?

We know that when taxes were higher, rev-GDP ratios were marginally higher.

But we also know that small changes to rev-GDP ratios has massive effects on revenue collected.

So if raising the top rate to 70% results in rev-GDP increasing by 1%, that's an increase of $200B in revenue collected.

Back in 2013, rev-GDP grew 1.4% after Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy. 1.4% of GDP in 2013 was $233B.

So the question is why wouldn't you want to raise the top tax rate on the rich to 70%?

 

[Flash]

Should be noted that their effective tax rate is higher because they've seen all the income gains over the last 40 years.

So they pay a higher effective rate because they have more income that is being taxed.

No. Their increased share of income explains why they pay a much larger share of all federal income taxes. Once they are in the top marginal rate the percentage of tax paid on their income does not increase--they are already at the top rate.

 

[LV426]

I don't think you understand taxes.

No, you don't understand taxes.

If a rich person makes an income of $10M, and they pay 70% of that in taxes, what happens to their effective tax rate if they make MORE INCOME OVER $10M?

It goes up, right? Because more income is being taxed at that higher rate.

So now imagine that a rich person made an income of $1M in 1980 and paid a 70% tax on $500K of that.

Then imagine that same rich person making an income of $2M in 1980 and paid a 70% tax on $1.5M of that.

So now, is that rich person's effective tax rate higher the more money they make, or lower?

Be honest.

 

[LV426]

Once you are paying the highest tax rate you don't pay a higher income tax rate because your income increases

Right, but you pay a higher effective tax rate because the more you make, the more of it that is taxed at the higher rate.

And that is how the wealthy have a higher effective tax rate today than they did in 1980, they're making more money.

 

[Getin the ring]

Does it raise as much revenue?

We know that when taxes were higher, rev-GDP ratios were marginally higher.

But we also know that small changes to rev-GDP ratios has massive effects on revenue collected.

So if raising the top rate to 70% results in rev-GDP increasing by 1%, that's an increase of $200B in revenue collected.

Back in 2013, rev-GDP grew 1.4% after Obama let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy. 1.4% of GDP in 2013 was $233B.

So the question is why wouldn't you want to raise the top tax rate on the rich to 70%?

here's an interesting question,

what the fu@k gives you, or the government the right to take 70% of ANYONES income

this is America

 

[LV426]

there's the problem...
you don't know me nut-bag
if you want to admit you are all for raising everyone taxes, now's the time
otherwise fuzzy math boy

No lifeboat for you here.

It's torched.

You don't get to weasel your way out of making stupid argument just because you feel bad being called out on it.

All you do here is engage in sophistry.

 

[LV426]

No. Their increased share of income explains why they pay a much larger share of all federal income taxes.

Which is just another way of saying they've enjoyed the income gains over the last 40 years, while no one else has.

They pay a higher effective rate because they're taking a larger share of the income.

So that's exactly what I said that you are now arguing against because you don't want to say three little words: "LV IS RIGHT".

 

[LV426]

Once they are in the top marginal rate the percentage of tax paid on their income does not increase--they are already at the top rate.

Their income doesn't increase once they reach a bracket?

What?

In a scenario where there is just a 70% rate on income over $10M, if you make $10.1M one year, and then $10.2M the next, does your effective tax rate go up year-to-year?

 

[LV426]

here's an interesting question,
what the fu@k gives you, or the government the right to take 70% of ANYONES income
this is America

Stop being so emotional.

Smile more. You're prettier when you smile.

 

[LV426]

No. Their increased share of income explains why they pay a much larger share of all federal income taxes. Once they are in the top marginal rate the percentage of tax paid on their income does not increase--they are already at the top rate.

Do you know or understand how effective tax rates are calculated?

To find your effective tax rate, add up the amounts of the varying tax rates to find a single sum. Divide that number by income to find your average tax rate. The higher your income, the higher your effective tax rate. That's just math.

So if your income has skyrocketed the last 40 years, as it has for the top 1%, then their effective rate will also increase because more income is being taxed at a higher rate.