Even if there were a 70% top bracket, the rich people make the laws so they'd give themselves enough deductions to keep themselves below the effective tax rate of the middle class.
59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Even if there were a 70% top bracket, the rich people make the laws so they'd give themselves enough deductions to keep themselves below the effective tax rate of the middle class.
They don't do that now. Currently the top 20% pay 88.1% of all federal income taxes.
Federal Average Income Tax Rates Paid:
Bottom 20%: 1.5%
2nd 20%: 9.5%
Middle 20%: 14.0%
4th 20%: 17.9%
Top 20%: 26.7%
Top 1% 33.3%
So the top pays twice the tax rate of the middle class.
I'm spoke of effective tax rate, you're not. Throw in federal payroll taxes and it cinches the deal, the rich steal from the middle-class -- and would continue to do so even if the nominal top rate were 70%.
BS. That is the effective tax rate [IRS data]. Throw in federal payroll taxes and the total numbers change little. The rich pay most of the taxes for the bottom 80%. The bottom 40% pay negative taxes when Earned Income Tax Credit is included.
You've fallen for that old myth that the middle class pays all the taxes and the rich hardly pay any. They are the only group that pays their "fair share" (a higher percent in taxes than their share of the income). Use IRS and CBO data rather than using partisan hacks.
Exactly. Nothing I said was untrue, and putting in a 70% bracket at $10M would raise the effective rate and the gross revenues collected. I proved it using math, which is something you haven't done ever. EVER. EVER EVER EVER.
Wow, you sure know how to hit your cue. After lambasting you for not showing your work you...don't show your work.
Last edited:
So now you want to make this whole debate about semantics.
And that, my friend, is why I say you act in bad faith.
You simply can't or won't admit that you are wrong. There is something in your brain, in your ego, that prevents you from admitting that you're full of shit.
Not sure what it is, but I suspect it's a personality disorder.
You said that raising the top tax rate to 70% would result in a lower effective tax rate for the rich. You base that on nothing, and then when given the math of it, rather than admit that higher marginal rates do increase the effective rate, you throw a figure out of left field with no sourcing, no proof, no work. You just invented a number out of thin air, didn't you, instead of admitting you're full of shit:
So why did you do that? What is the reason? Why are you doing everything you can to avoid admitting that you're wrong? Why not just say that I'm right, that raising rates would increase revenue, and that everything you had previously believed was wrong because it was just you trying to fit your position into the inherent biases you have?
Seriously, why?
So this is how Flash defends tax cuts...by making emotional arguments about how much and what share certain income demos pay. He's trying to make it an emotional argument about fairness because the economics aren't there for him. It's a habit among Conservatives; when their arguments have no economic or fiscal support, they shift the debate to an emotional question of fairness.
Well, Flash, since the wealthy have enjoyed 100% of the income gains during the last 40 years of trickle down Conservative economics, then they should probably pay 100% of the tax burden.
So if you really want to have a debate about fairness, we can.
It's just a debate you aren't going to win.
Which you're saying for what reason? Because you want people to oppose raising taxes on the rich.
The top 20% pay 88.1% of all federal taxes, but the top 1% saw 100% of the income gains over the last 40 years.
So it would seem that the top 1% should pay 100% of all federal taxes since they took 100% of the income gains.
So if you want to have a debate about "fairness", let's do it. I'm down. Let's boogie.
A. You say it's unfair to raise taxes on the wealthy because they already pay most of the taxes.
B. I say it's fair to raise taxes on the wealthy because they have taken 100% of the income gains.
So one of those two positions has more heft to it than the other. One of those two positions is objectively more fair than the other. Which one do you think that is?
The top pays twice the tax rate, yet the top has taken 100% of the income gains.
So it seems to me that "the top" needs to pay a shitload more since they're taking all the income.
Which is why we need public campaign finance with a ban on all donations to political campaigns and lobbying.
Level the playing field so ideas can compete for votes instead of politicians competing for money.
Also, public campaign finance would mean that politicians no longer have to spend time raising money and can do their jobs legislating.
That one simple fix will change the course of our democracy for the better.
They are already the only group paying a larger share of income taxes than their share of the income. That is more than "fair share."
A person doesn't care what the tax rate is when he is getting the benefits and somebody else is paying for it. It destroys any concept of fairness.
No. I said it to refute the poster who claimed the wealthy would rig the law so they pay a lower tax rate than the middle class.
No it's not.
They took 100% of the income gains, but aren't paying 100% of the tax burden.
So that's not "fairness", that's thievery.
And why should we take anything you say seriously?
After all, you are so stupid, you got conned into this shit.
See, your problem is that you only look at things in the controlled vacuum you create to insulate yourself from any criticism.
What isn't fair is that all the income gains the last 40 years went to the top 1%, who saw their marginal rates get cut. You all said, over and over and over, that if we let the rich "keep more of what they earned", it would trickle down.
It didn't. So you either lied, bullshitted us, or just had no fucking clue what you were saying.
So which is it? Are you a liar, a bullshitter, or an ignoramus?
So since they took 100% of the income gains, it's only fair they pay 100% of the tax burden.
And the thing is, I'm not even calling for them to pay 100% of the tax burden. All I'm calling for is for them to pay a higher rate on some of their income.
That's fair.
What's not fair is raising your own income by taking it from others and then not paying taxes on it.
We already have public financing of presidential elections and have since 1976. It was used by all candidates for the general election until Obama who refused the money because he could spend as much as he wanted if he did not take the money.
You are a moron, fcktard. I'm sorry I didn't all you a moron earlier, when you were being a moron. Moron, your claim that the top x% of taxpayers pays y% of the taxes tell us nothing about their tax rate, as I already told you. And, I said the rich pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class. You pathetic sh!t-for-brains moron, those who pay a "negative" tax rate because of EIC are the poor (with kids), not the middle-class.
Also, this is an entirely emotional argument from the highly emotional Conservative con artist.
Since you can't make a fiscal or economic argument against higher marginal rates, you unilaterally decide to shift the debate to the subjective question of "fairness".
Then, when an example of unfairness is given to you, like how the top 1% have taken all the income gains, you ignore it. You pretend it was never said. Your brain prevents your eyes from seeing it.
So if you want to move this debate to the realm of what's fair, you're going to lose because I have the righteous position and you don't.
evince
Truthmatters
Ah.
OK.
So then you would agree that it's fair to raise taxes on those who have taken all the income gains the last 40 years of this trickle down experiment?