I never said that. You have a vivid imagination based on what you want to hear.
We can find years when revenue-GDP increased after a tax increase and years when it increased after a tax cut and years it it increased or decreased with no tax changes.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Taxing the Rich Could Yield
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
I never said that. You have a vivid imagination based on what you want to hear.
We can find years when revenue-GDP increased after a tax increase and years when it increased after a tax cut and years it it increased or decreased with no tax changes.
We can find years when revenue-GDP increased after a tax increase and years when it increased after a tax cut and years it it increased or decreased with no tax changes.
What we don't see is that rev-GDP declining after a tax increase.
Which is my point.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
So let's do the math. Using Cartoon Kenny's own money these people are WORTH $618 billion dollars. That is NET WORTH. That is not how much income they earn any given year.
As it stands today, we do not tax wealth. We tax income.
But, let's say for the same of argument that the leftists greatest wet dream comes true and we pass a law taxing WEALTH as well as INCOME and the federal gobblement confiscates 50% of the $618 billion. That comes to $309 billion dollars.
and leaves another $309 billion for next year of which you would only be able to tax at $150 billion and then the following year $75 billion and so on and so on and so on.
Now, what would $309 billion get us? Well, it would fund less than 10% of the federal gobblement for one year and doesn't even come close to the other leftist wet dreams y'all have.
Bottom line is taxing the rich will never yield what you say it will. Wistful memories of a 70% top marginal rate in 1960 won't change that
As it stands today, we do not tax wealth. We tax income.
But, let's say for the same of argument that the leftists greatest wet dream comes true and we pass a law taxing WEALTH as well as INCOME and the federal gobblement confiscates 50% of the $618 billion. That comes to $309 billion dollars.
and leaves another $309 billion for next year of which you would only be able to tax at $150 billion and then the following year $75 billion and so on and so on and so on.
Now, what would $309 billion get us? Well, it would fund less than 10% of the federal gobblement for one year and doesn't even come close to the other leftist wet dreams y'all have.
Bottom line is taxing the rich will never yield what you say it will. Wistful memories of a 70% top marginal rate in 1960 won't change that
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Nordberg,
Spot on.
Let's see. Tax rate 35 percent. How much money is collected? Change top rate to 70 percent. Can you explain how that would not increase revenue? When Ike was president, we had a tax rate of over 90 percent. We built our national highway system . Now we can't maintain it. Of course back then corporations did not have so many ways to evade taxes and they had a higher rate. They contributed over 30 percent of revenue collected. Now under 10. Sorry, but the cold hard fact is we have allowed the people on top get away with paying a slive of the tax rate they once paid. Now we have a wealth gap that is worse than the Gilded Age. A terrible wealth gap is a threat to the system. Money=power.
Spot on.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
Totally agree.
So does AOC.
I can understand muni's being tax free. It allows municipalities to float bonds at a reasonable rate.
But stuff like capital gains...should be considered...well, INCOME...and should be taxed just like any other income.
Inheritances should be taxed as income.
And the rates should go WAY up...over 75% on top income.
Most of the reason given for not doing so...really do not rise above rationalizations in order to favor the rich.
Just sayin.'
Totally agree.
So does AOC.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
"What Taxing the Rich Could Yield:"
We could balance the budget.
We could balance the budget.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
If you are living a happy life, and not dying of anything, and have everything you already want- you are rich already- you may just not realize it!
"I'm going to prove that raising taxes on the wealthy won't increase revenue, and here's some figures that shows revenue increases after taxes are raised"
Revenues increase almost every year--after tax increases, after tax cuts, when there are no tax changes.
Revenues increase almost every year--after tax increases, after tax cuts, when there are no tax changes.
Right, but raising taxes results in more revenue than cutting them. Never once has revenue declined after a tax increase, but there are several instances -in the federal budget and in state budgets like Kansas- that show revenue declining after a tax cut. The clearest example are the years 2001-2004, when revenue levels (i.e. gross revenue collected) were below what they were in 2000.
Your insistence was that changes to the marginal rate have little effect on a singular metric (rev-GDP), but you gloss over that small effects on that particular metric have massive effects on gross revenue collected.
You argued that wasn't the case, then posted data showing that it was.
So let's do the math. Using Cartoon Kenny's own money these people are WORTH $618 billion dollars. That is NET WORTH. That is not how much income they earn any given year.
That's not their worth then, that's just their income.
So right away, you start off a post being inaccurate, so that will have a downstream effect on everything else you write.
But, let's say for the same of argument that the leftists greatest wet dream comes true and we pass a law taxing WEALTH as well as INCOME and the federal gobblement confiscates 50% of the $618 billion. That comes to $309 billion dollars
$309B would be a little more than 1/3 of the current federal deficit.
Back before the Russia tax cuts, $309B would be about 56% of the federal deficit.
So your Russia Tax Cut exploded the deficit.
I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives stapled teabags to their faces because they were so concerned about the deficits and debt.
and leaves another $309 billion for next year of which you would only be able to tax at $150 billion and then the following year $75 billion and so on and so on and so on.
No one is proposing taxing wealth, just taxing income.
We should tax wealth, though.
Adam Smith opposed generational wealth being passed down.
reagansghost
eternal
Republican Dwight Eisenhower built a interstate highway network, the envy of the world at the time, by taxing the wealthy at a reasonable and sustainable rate. American infrastructure was a high priority
then along came assholes like Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and now traitor Trump to convince the great unwashed that rich people need even more money.......and even as they fall into economic ruin
never underestimate the power of mass brainwashing
then along came assholes like Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and now traitor Trump to convince the great unwashed that rich people need even more money.......and even as they fall into economic ruin
never underestimate the power of mass brainwashing
Now, what would $309 billion get us? Well, it would fund less than 10% of the federal gobblement for one year and doesn't even come close to the other leftist wet dreams y'all have.
So ILA uses a lot of sophistry and false arguments here, and does so in a sloppy way hoping that people will not point out just how sloppy it is.
1. No liberal has called for a "wealth tax", so right away you are working from a poor assumption you made because your judgment is terrible.
2. By falsely framing the argument as such, you can avoid what Democrats are actually talking about, which is raising the rate on income over $10M to 70%. That would establish a brand new tax bracket. Also, we had a rate of 70% or higher from 1946-1981, when the United States had arguably its most prolonged economic expansion and period of prosperity with no massive economic collapses, manageable deficits, and enough social spending to reduce the poverty rate from 23% in 1960 down as low as 11% by the late 70's.
3. Conservatives know all this, and are choosing a path of obfuscation and lies by omission because it's more important for them to preserve their egos than ever admit they're not as smart, informed, or savvy as they want people to think.
Bottom line is taxing the rich will never yield what you say it will. Wistful memories of a 70% top marginal rate in 1960 won't change that
Nonsense.
We soaked the rich from 1946-1981 and in that time we built the middle class, built the interstate highway system, established Medicare, reduced the poverty rate from 23% in 1960 down to 11% by the late 70's, and we put a man on the moon.
Soaking the rich is just good economics.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Nonsense.
We soaked the rich from 1946-1981 and in that time we built the middle class, built the interstate highway system, established Medicare, reduced the poverty rate from 23% in 1960 down to 11% by the late 70's, and we put a man on the moon.
Soaking the rich is just good economics.
do you even hear your own dumbass?
"What Taxing the Rich Could Yield:"
We could balance the budget.
this ^^^ is why you should just stay in your own threads, the ones where you ban debate
do you even hear your own dumbass?
We had a top tax rate that ranged from 70% - 94% between 1946-1981 and saw the longest period of economic expansion and prosperity.
this ^^^ is why you should just stay in your own threads, the ones where you ban debate
Fact is that there has never, ever, ever been a case of Conservative economics responsibly growing an economy.
Never, not once.
Great
I love it when I work 60-70 weeks to earn more money for my family only for the government to take it so they can piss it away.
I love working hard for more money so we can share my wealth with some lazy ass who feels the government should pay for their food, apartment, college, and medical while they sit at home.
I love it when I work 60-70 weeks to earn more money for my family only for the government to take it so they can piss it away.
I love working hard for more money so we can share my wealth with some lazy ass who feels the government should pay for their food, apartment, college, and medical while they sit at home.
I love it when I work 60-70 weeks to earn more money for my family only for the government to take it so they can piss it away
There are only 52 weeks in a year.
Do you mean work 60-70 hours? Well, do you understand how the progressive tax system works? You don't pay 70% on all your income, just 70% on income over $10M.
You either know how the progressive tax brackets work and are engaging in sophistry, or you don't know and are acting stupidly.
I love working hard for more money so we can share my wealth with some lazy ass who feels the government should pay for their food, apartment, college, and medical while they sit at home.
No one believes that you, personally, have a job.
Most people who use government assistance programs are employed in jobs where their employer pays them a wage low enough that they qualify for benefits.
The simple solution is to just pay workers enough that they don't qualify for benefits. But you oppose that, so your argument is basically just masturbation.