It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When the Progressive Income Tax Rates were high were the Rich or the Wealthy people still Rich did t

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
why dont you people starting thinking about the 74 million americans who pay no tax whatsoever before you start trying to make others pay more.


That is not a factual statement. Or is there some loophole that I am missing that allows people to not pay taxes on items purchased like gas, alcohol, cigarettes (federal tax) or state tax on property and other purchases? Are they able to skip the tolls charged in many states, maybe local and school taxes, licenses and other fees, some break on utilities taxes?

I assume you are talking about income taxes and those making below the poverty level in the U.S.? I know they must all be tax cheats, they hire the best attorneys and find all the loop holes. We really need to find some way to make sure we get their nickels and dimes. That would really balance the budget and put a dent in the debt.

/sarcasm off




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hiasyouwant
It is a very very easy term to understand, and its simply "Corporate America" AKA "Capitalism". Need I say more? Say what you want about Socialism, we'd be 10x better off.


If you think that 74 million not paying taxes is unfair under socialism it would be to each ability and to each needs. Those 74 million would grow to what 100-150 million who would sit back and let the other 200 million that care of them. Of thoses 200 million if you had five cows and the government took 4 the next time you would only have one cow. That is human nature why should I work and have the fruits of my labor taken away to fill those who do not work.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Taxes should be higher for the rich, but spending should be cut too.

Start with military, stop giving those "rich" people contracts.
Start taxing like the rest of the world taxes. (US corporation taxes are among the LOWEST) why do people keep acting like they are super high?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SelfSustainedLoner
 
They are not necessarily homeless or living outside of society. Better look at the amount of money spent on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and all the other socialist programs that are government run. They may be considered a state program, but the bulk of the money comes from federal grants. And that money comes to the states by the way of sales tax, excise tax, fuel taxes, ad nauseum. Income tax is a progressive tax that is set up to redistribute wealth. Read up on your Marx and Engels.
Yes we all pay taxes. Income tax was instituted to help us pay for WWI. It was never supposed to be higher than 7%. Ain't that a kick in the damned head.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I think this might say it best...

This is from 2007, but the principle still applies...


5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.


www.american.com...

Raising taxes may, in the short term, raise your tax revenue, but in the long term it stifles investment. Without investment, jobs are not created. If jobs are not created, more people collect assistance from the government. If more people collect assistance, fewer people pay taxes to pay for that assistance.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


Actually, the way I would have it, the dollar would be backed not on the Fed, but on the nation's GDP. You're work is the government's worth.

And the government would not actually take that money, they simply would have that worth to use, like a person's house.

But in practicality, It's your total worth. 10% of that. Every Year. However, it seems more sensible to have it based off income, as that's physical money. In that case, If I was making around $50,000 a year, I'd have to pay $5,000 dollars a year. Seems reasonable. It should just be taken out of the money you are physically paid to make it easier, but then again maybe forcing people to spend responsibly has its benefits.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Your total worth would include all your assets. So the car the house the money in the bank would all be taxed at 10% all this would do is cause people to hide their true worth and the Government would set up projections and would still spend more than they are taking in. there need to be an ammendment the the feds can not spend more than what is taken in and do a flate tax that way no one gets a leg up on anyone else and the people in DC could not write tax laws that favor one over the other,.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 


Not each individual asset. What you make each year.

Sorry for saying assets as in your total worth.

However, ideally the government would just have the rights to the total GDP as their money. Problem there is that basically then the government has top control over where work goes. IE, Extremely centralized economy. There has to be some in between.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


A 10% national sales tax would be great every one would pay and of course there would be itms that would not be taxed like food and rent.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
the buisness of the rich and ELITE will ALWAYS pass the buck on to you. so, if the rich get taxed, they pass that tax onto the products that they make and that gets passed on to you the consumer. SO, who cares. WE the LOWELY will always flip the bill. WE always have. I always loved to hear congress say they are raising taxes for the rich. The statement is so dumb. They are still taxing us poor. don't you sheeple get it.:


I don't think that's ever been proven to be the case. If a company simply raises the price of a product they produce because of a higher tax they could in effect end up losing money or profit because sales would drop. From what I can tell what really sets the price on most products is what the market deems it is worth, not what a company is being taxed.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
I think this might say it best...

This is from 2007, but the principle still applies...


5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.


www.american.com...

Raising taxes may, in the short term, raise your tax revenue, but in the long term it stifles investment. Without investment, jobs are not created. If jobs are not created, more people collect assistance from the government. If more people collect assistance, fewer people pay taxes to pay for that assistance.


No offense, but that article seems like some major propaganda at work. Even with the wealthy paying much, much less in taxes now than they have in the past, somehow the writers (or think tanks) behind that article find a way to spin it into somehow the wealthy are carrying the load for the country.

What that article really illustrates (inadvertently) is what a number of recent articles have reported - the wealthy are accumulating more of the wealth, the gulf between the super rich and the rest of America is widening, most wages are stagnant and the middle class is disappearing.

Is there any proof that raising top tax rates = no jobs creation? Maybe there is but I've never seen it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It very well could be called class warfar, at this rate there will
Be billionaires and their servants. You constantly bring up the class warfare,
I think in, an attempt to paint anyone questioning your rallying
For an oligarchy, as communist??! For me there is a practical matter,
Which is the well being of Americans across the land. For thirty years America
Has pursued the conservative tax agenda. As a result this country is not doing as
Well, we work harder, longer hours and are bound by private contracts for the most
Basics of needs. The conversion of trickle down never pans out, it only goes to raise
The earnings bar for management, which is achieved by lowering the bar
For the cogs across the board. A whole lot of you are acting as defenders
Of the very oligarchy and system you claim to hate. It is not a romantic position, not
After I see what it creates in action, "freedom" seems to be pursued for the elite, I don't
Hear you brigade promoting anything but concepts that conserve the power that corrupts America.
No campaign to possibly make street vending easier, no... It is all oil wells, nuclear time bombs and
Making corporate extortion easier. Your need to condense this discussion into an issue of envy,
Why?


edit on 1-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BomSquad
I think this might say it best...

This is from 2007, but the principle still applies...


5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.


www.american.com...

Raising taxes may, in the short term, raise your tax revenue, but in the long term it stifles investment. Without investment, jobs are not created. If jobs are not created, more people collect assistance from the government. If more people collect assistance, fewer people pay taxes to pay for that assistance.


Funny: didnt work during Clintons years when investment as share of GDP rose. (Hint: If you have to pay higher taxes when you take money out of a company, you have an incentive to not do that, and reinvest instead)

www.tradingeconomics.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by lildaddy985
reply to post by Jezus
 
I am actually on your side in this discussion. I was (I guess, unsuccessfully) attempting to highlight the hypocrisy of their argument. The day when it was the lazy and shiftless who were poor has long since passed. There are no success guarantees in America. There are degreed minimum wage workers everywhere.
I am also tired of hearing that millionaires work hard for their money, THEY DON'T!!! Poor people work hard. Sometimes 70 or more hours a week for 400-something dollars a week in take-home, no medical benefits, sweating (sometimes bleeding) and toiling the entire time. These people aren't stupid or lazy (many are college graduates). They are doing what they can and being productive citizens...


I believe rich people work really hard to be rich but it is irrelevant, they still need to be taxed more.

The problem is that their are negative externalities of being extremely rich.

Higher taxes are necessary to create balance and support infrastructure.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
One thing I've noticed during the debate here and in the Congress is all this double talk about how increasing the taxes on the rich will cause them to not create jobs, and feel unsure of where the economy is going to be, so they're all holding back to see what happens.

My question is what happened during the last 6 years of Bush II? I think it took him a couple of years to get the tax breaks in place, but, still the economy tanked at the end of his term, and job growth during that time, which should have been at full steam, was quite poor.

Oh, but, those that were rich, well their net worth far out paced those that are not so lucky.

The distance between the haves and the have nots, grew dramatically. Not because one side or the other worked harder, or worked less, but because of greed.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by macman
Why does it matter?
To raise taxes is to take away from some to give to others.
If I go from say $150k a year, taxed at 40%, only to go to $300k a year and then taxed at 50%, then why move up in life? It is punishment.

Very plain and simple.



$150,000 taxed at 40% leaves you with $90,000 per year. $300,000 taxed at 50% leaves you with $150,000 per year. I would think the extra $60,000 would still be a pretty nice motivator.


You are missing the point.
It's not your nor the Govt's money.
Why should a person get taxed more, for making more??
It is purely class warfare and envy of others.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by macman
 


It very well could be called class warfar, at this rate there will
Be billionaires and their servants. You constantly bring up the class warfare,
I think in, an attempt to paint anyone questioning your rallying
For an oligarchy, as communist??! For me there is a practical matter,
Which is the well being of Americans across the land. For thirty years America
Has pursued the conservative tax agenda. As a result this country is not doing as
Well, we work harder, longer hours and are bound by private contracts for the most
Basics of needs. The conversion of trickle down never pans out, it only goes to raise
The earnings bar for management, which is achieved by lowering the bar
For the cogs across the board. A whole lot of you are acting as defenders
Of the very oligarchy and system you claim to hate. It is not a romantic position, not
After I see what it creates in action, "freedom" seems to be pursued for the elite, I don't
Hear you brigade promoting anything but concepts that conserve the power that corrupts America.
No campaign to possibly make street vending easier, no... It is all oil wells, nuclear time bombs and
Making corporate extortion easier. Your need to condense this discussion into an issue of envy,
Why?


edit on 1-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


You said Communist, not I.
It is at its base, envy of those that have more then you.
It is Elitist to think that others can do better or should have a say in the money that I make.
As for the Conservative Taxing rate and such? It works when the Govt does sink it's dirty claws into it and try to play Wealth God and manipulate the economy.
If everyone focused on worrying about themselves, instead of the Jone's, we would be much better off.
If the Govt did not take more from some, to give to others, we would be better off.
I have yet to see anyone on Welfare create a job someone else.
If you want people to succeed, then they have to learn to be successful by learning from their mistakes and defeats in life, not by the Govt coming in, kissing their boo-boo better and allowing the person to ignore and forget their failure.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
reply to post by macman
 


It very well could be called class warfar, at this rate there will
Be billionaires and their servants. You constantly bring up the class warfare,
I think in, an attempt to paint anyone questioning your rallying
For an oligarchy, as communist??! For me there is a practical matter,
Which is the well being of Americans across the land. For thirty years America
Has pursued the conservative tax agenda. As a result this country is not doing as
Well, we work harder, longer hours and are bound by private contracts for the most
Basics of needs. The conversion of trickle down never pans out, it only goes to raise
The earnings bar for management, which is achieved by lowering the bar
For the cogs across the board. A whole lot of you are acting as defenders
Of the very oligarchy and system you claim to hate. It is not a romantic position, not
After I see what it creates in action, "freedom" seems to be pursued for the elite, I don't
Hear you brigade promoting anything but concepts that conserve the power that corrupts America.
No campaign to possibly make street vending easier, no... It is all oil wells, nuclear time bombs and
Making corporate extortion easier. Your need to condense this discussion into an issue of envy,
Why?


edit on 1-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


And something else to add.
I am not talking about Corporations, you brought that into play.
I am talking about individuals, whether they are business owners or not, it does not matter.
No one other then that person should decide what is done with their money.

I do agree that a Tax does need to be paid, but by ALL. A flat tax should make every Liberal, Communist and Socialist scream hurray from the mountain tops. Because it is levied on the evil idea of consumption.
But, most will not, because it takes away direct control from the Govt that is loved more by those listed.

I challenge anyone to go back over the course of a year, add up every dime that was waken out of your check for tax, medicare, medicaid and SS, take that total amount and figure out what you could have used that for over the year.
Now, take that entire amount out of an account and light it on fire, because that is what it equates to.
The Govt pisses it away on useless crap, never ending programs that not only don't succeed in the end goal, they actually require more money and nation building in foreign countries after wars.

If you as a person had to individually pay that monthly amount, the Revolt would have happened quickly and a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


if I make $30,000 and you make $230,000, I pay my share of SS which goes towards my retirement benefit, you pay your share and you reap the benefit when you retire. We pay an equal amount on the first $30k and then, since my salary is that amount, I don't pay more.

Medicare is taxed on the total salary, no cap so, with regards to health benefits, the man making the millions pays in far more than the person who doesn't and guess what? Odds are, the person making $30k will need medicare whereas the person who paid in $0.29% on his millions in wages over the course of his life, will, most likely, have other insurance as he will be able to afford whatever he wants so, essentially, he's funding healthcare for others.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
*THIS THREAD HAS ANGERED ME!*

Too many people here do NOT understand macroeconomics and thus, do not understand a single solitary thing about taxes.

And so, in this idiom, I have decided to make yet another edition of:

*Ertai Nagia's

Super Ignorance Denial Post

OF DOOOOOOM!*



reply to post by Schkeptick
 



Go ahead, raise the taxes on success. It's one more reason for people to not bother trying, or to leave the USA altogether.


At what point do you know of, is being successful in an economy that is absolute trash a good thing?

You realize that being super wealthy, in an economy that cannot support agriculture is a bad thing, right?

How much of the super wealthy's money is having an economy that can PRODUCE gold plated yachts worth?

If they want to leave so bad, because "Their Money" is being taken, then let them sit on their piles of cash in the ruins of civilization.

reply to post by macman
 



To raise taxes is to take away from some to give to others.


Oh, that's REALLY rich....

Last time I checked, the United states was 1.2 trillion dollars over budget THIS YEAR ALONE, because we are spending, hand over fist to.....

Militarily occupy nations that have

RESOURCES that our large

"Hard Working"

corporations want to exploit for profit.


Good bit of logic there...



reply to post by greeneyedleo
 



People earn it. they should do what they want with it. And it is ridiculous and selfish to think that those who have more should dish it out to those who have less.


Are you implying that Taxes go to the poor?

Because from where I'm standing, (Reality) Taxes go to fund wars of conquest for resources that these large corporations need at cheap prices to make a dirty buck.

reply to post by neo96
 



you people and this government is not entitled to money they didnt earn.



TAX MONEY DOES NOT

GO TO THE POOR!



It goes to fund the Government, that means Corporate Contractors, that means Military hardware.

Implying that increasing the taxes on the rich, would somehow go to the poor, is about as ignorant a statement as you can make.


stop with the freaking robbing hood deal.


Then you should get the Military Industrial Complex to stop getting our nation into WARS for their profit!


yeah 74 millions americans are not paying there share but go after the ones who do pay.


Pay their share of *WHAT?*

Violent resource acquisition in other nations?

When do we get to see a cut of those profits?

Because We are ALL paying for those wars....

And then we get to buy the petroleum that our tax dollars "Acquired"

Nice...


does the us constitution mean nothing to you people you can not tax or steal from a minority to pay for the majority.


Your post is about as ignorant as you can get.

You realize that our corrupt government was corrupted by people with large amounts of money, right?

You realize that they corrupted our government to INCREASE their wealth, right?

You realize that they are profiting off of OUR TAXES... RIGHT?

I don't see the poor getting a stake in Iraqi Oil profits.... but I *DO* see them saddled with the Tax Burden (and Debt) that fighting that war accumulated.

You gripe about taxing the rich being "Unfair" and how it's a "Socialist Wealth Redistribution Program" and you never say a single word about how WE, the POOR, are financing their Profits.

Talk about wealth redistribution... except it only goes one way... UP.

reply to post by Nosred
 



If you keep putting the tax burdens on the successful then this is going to turn into a Galt's Gulch scenario.


If you keep putting the tax burdens on the poor, and leaving the rich out of it... then we will end up with MASSIVE budget shortfalls...

Oh, wait...

Yeah... how are you going to finance a government, by taking money from people that don't have any?

Do you even see the Giant, Gaping hole in your plan?


How does a tax on being successful make any kind of sense?


And how much blood have you squeezed from a Rock lately?

reply to post by Misoir
 



I just love that line, “The rich are greedy because they don’t want us to take their money!” Why would someone be angry that they actually worked hard and succeeded just to have a government supported by the envious masses come and take their earned wealth by force?




Earned... ya, right.



reply to post by neo96
 



my biggest beef in this thread is they have no problems telling other people how much money they can have but when someone turns the table on them its a big NO you dont.


My biggest beef in this thread is that my tax dollars are going towards getting people killed by the millions, so that a few ultra wealthy individuals can get more freaking wealthy.

THAT, is Wealth Redistribution.

But you don't SEE that, do you?
edit on 1-7-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: error correction



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join