« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 90 Next » Last » Search these comments
Goran_K saysThe top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States
Does not include social security and medicare taxes that all poor people pay.
1 - Income inequality is a fake problem. We had this conversation already. The economy is not a zero sum game.
2 - The tax cut hits everyone across the board not just the rich.
3 - "the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money" WTF?
There are no farms where Facebook is, and no Facebook where the farms are. The tax rates would be orders of magnitude different.
Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
HappyGilmore saysDo you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
Here's a table with the best GDP growth years and their corresponding top tax rate. Sure seems like higher tax rates HELP growth.
The chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
Do you believe in the Constitution? The Founding Fathers answered that question quite conclusively.
Sniper saysThe chart in the OP says INCOME TAX, not medicare or S.S.
The chart says that. Goran explicitly uses the words "tax burden" which is wrong.
Tax burden does not include sales taxes that all poor people either.
Actually it IS a zero sum game. Real growth in the US is measured by productivity growth. That is a couple percent a year. So, for all intents and purposes it is a zero sum game.
Income inequality is, by far, the biggest problem in the US economy right now.
1- An increasing amount of money go to the rich vs poor (increasing inequalities)
2 - Rich people (Trump) have just cut taxes for themselves while increasing spending
3 - the main bottleneck of the economy is poor end-demand (outside debt) due to poor people not having any money
The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States
Yep! we need to add several trillions of debts - every year - just to maintain the current "end demand". If we stopped adding debt, the end demand would collapse, like it did in 2008. The gov had to start compensating by adding huge amount to the national debts.
Why are we in this situation????
Because the poorest 70% have no fucking money to spend, and the richest don't NEED to spend. They don't know what to do with their money outside accumulating it.
Should the poor be allowed to vote other people's money to themselves via the government?
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
Oh, NOW we actually like the Constitution...
Didn't seem to be the case in "repeal the 2A" thread.
Top tax bracket rate has little to do with actual amount of tax paid. Back when top tax rate was near 90%, as it is the case in some other countries now, the top executive jobs came with perks like free cars, free residence and free blowjobs from young pretty things on the payroll of the companies and the government agencies! The employers simply didn't pay that much cash out to the executives when 90% of the pay would be intercepted by a 3rd party.
Also, if GDP growth is your primary goal, you ought to love the actual Nazi Party, which produced the highest GDP ever recorded in the modern world:
A couple percentage a year real growth should never be taken for granted. A couple percentage a year real growth is actually very good: doubling living standards every 36 years, or every generation! Setting aside the GDP nonsense that account for more and more government waste, the US only sustained 2+% annual real growth in the "Guilded Age" from roughly mid-19th century to early-20th century.
The economic stagnation in the US in the past few decades is precisely the result of centralizing economic management.
Slaves who enjoyed free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, all decided by other people (slave owners) instead of themselves making choices (buying those goods and services with their own money) did not have the right of vote. Likewise, people on welfare (i.e. enjoying free housing, free food, free education and free medicine, as ward of the state) should not have the right to vote.
So, all men aren't created equal then?
So, all men aren't created equal then?
Neither individuals nor groups are born with the same gifts
Limiting voting rights to those land owners who had skin in the game wasnt a terrible idea.
I don't think the Founders perceived the right to vote as a gift.
Who doesn't have skin the game of life?
of course, there is a case to be made that the resulting unequal load balancing between states of our previous tariff based economy is why we had a civil war.
Goran is pondering if net worth is a better proxy for voting on tax issues only
Yep, and I'm just pointing out that his pondering seems to be against the very principles this country was founded upon.
It would have nothing to do with competitiveness.
Here's a table with the best GDP growth years and their corresponding top tax rate. Sure seems like higher tax rates HELP growth.
Funny, I thought sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, FICA, taxes, excise taxes, etc., were also part of the tax burden in the United States. Despite that deceptive use of the word taxes in the name apparently in the world according to Goran they are not. You learn something new on patnet every day.
It would appear that some people believe that the no taxation without representation principal, which was the founding principal of the country, is some sort of a flexible sliding scale that can be used as a pick and choose exercise depending on what partizan political point they want to make.
Why?
If the corporate tax rates in comparable markets are much lower, why would a company invest into the U.S?
Was it the high tax rate, or a globally interdependent competitive economy?
People keep bringing up the Constitution, but the Constitution was created way before there was a Federal income tax.
But, high corporate rates have actually been shown to lead to more investment as investment is pre-tax. So, investing lowers taxes.
It's pretty interesting that the top 20 best GDPs all occur under high top tax rate environments. Pretty hard to argue that high top tax rates lower growth.
But the Constitution very clearly states that everyone is created equal under the law. Rich people don't get extra votes due to their wealth.
his is completely false.
High corporate tax rates universally suppress capital investment. This is why the EU flounders and why the Asian Tigers were able to build massive economies.
None of them are 90%.
Yes, equal.
Equal would be a flat tax.
Unequal would be a progressive tax scheme.
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 90 Next » Last » Search these comments
The top 20% of income earners pay 95% of the tax burden in the United States. Poor people overwhelmingly take back from the tax system in terms of benefits (they are not a net contributor to the system). Middle class people tend to wash when it comes contributions vs taking.
My question, is this fair? It seems to me the most fair system would be a simple flat tax across the board with no modifications up or down based on income level.
Should the poor be allowed to vote other people's money to themselves via the government? For instance support for universal health care according to Pew Research was nearly 100% for income levels below $50,000, but only enjoyed a 40% favor with income levels above $200,000. That makes sense, but is it fair?