05 Jul 08
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a year. Further more, a multi millionaire pays only 15% capital gains tax on his investments while the working middle class families pay that much in social security tax plus the federal income tax.
To conclude, if the USA is to become strong, taxes on the wealthy will have to go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joeKeeping the capital gains tax low is good for the economy because it encourages people to invest. Remember that capital gains applies also to the middle class that have investments.
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a ...[text shortened]... o go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpIncorrect. In fact, high taxes encourage investment. If you have your choice of paying high taxes, or preserving you wealth in the form of an investment, you will make the investment every time. When the USA was the most powerful financially in the world , (from WWII though the 60's,) the marginal tax rate was 90%
Keeping the capital gains tax low is good for the economy because it encourages people to invest. Remember that capital gains applies also to the middle class that have investments.
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joeThis only applies if you are talking about a "wealth tax" (not sure about the english word, vermogenstaks in dutch), it is flat out wrong for every other kind of tax. And even then, people will just take their wealth abroad so it doesn't benefit the economy.
Incorrect. In fact, high taxes encourage investment. If you have your choice of paying high taxes, or preserving you wealth in the form of an investment, you will make the investment every time. When the USA was the most powerful financially in the world , (from WWII though the 60's,) the marginal tax rate was 90%
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by BartsI beg to disagree. Any money taken out of the country to avoid taxes should be taxed! Secondly, I stick by my guns.......... a high marginal income tax rate stimulates investment. A low marginal income tax rate reduces the stimulus to invest.
This only applies if you are talking about a "wealth tax" (not sure about the english word, vermogenstaks in dutch), it is flat out wrong for every other kind of tax. And even then, people will just take their wealth abroad so it doesn't benefit the economy.
06 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeI saw a very interesting graph once. It showed the US national debt on one side and on the other side the beginning of the federal income tax. Amazingly, both graphs seemed to run parallel in there ascent upwards.
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a ...[text shortened]... o go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
I think you will find that it matters little how much money you make, rather, it has everything to do with how you manage your money. For some, they cannot make it on less than $200,000 a year. I know, I have talked to such people and they marvel at how the "little people" survive on less.
The government needs to first show that they can manage money before they are given more money. At least, you would do this with your accountant, however, for the government we just sign blank checks and say, "Take your fair share"...(whatever that is)....yet as taxes continue to go up and up and up our situation only seems to get worse and worse. Go figure?
To become strong the US government needs reform and better checks and balances. Throwing money around has gotten us no where.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joedebt has gone up because of the sensless war in Iraq, coupled with poor fiscal mangement by the executive branch. Get spending and money management under control, and we will have a better idea what the equitable tax rate should be.
With W as our leader, taxes have gone down(mosssstly for the super rich) and debt has gone up.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
07 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeSocial Security should be left out of the equation. Social Security should only be raised if the existing social security funds are not enough to pay out social security benefits. Social security taxes should not be raised to resolve other goverment budget problems.
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a ...[text shortened]... o go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
You failed to mention the fact that the wealthy already pay a higher income tax rate than the middle and lower class. So you need to be careful when you throw language around that the wealthy should pay the same rate as everyone else. By that logic the wealthy should only be paying a top marginal rate of 15%. That would defeat your purpose. Personally I'd be okay with everyone just simply paying a flat income tax rate of 15% but it ain't gonna happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
If you look at the capital gains table in the link above you will see that the capital gains tax rate is also progressive in that those that make more money pay higher capital gains rate. In other words the capital gains rate is already higher than the 15% that you are claiming for the very wealthy.
I think you'll find that our deficit is due more to the fact that our federal government cannot control it's spending. Therein lies the real problem. Giving the federal government more money to spend isn't going to solve the problem. We give the government more money every year and they proceed to dig a deeper hole.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joeYour conjecture is wrong. In fact, the wealthiest Americans now pay a significantly greater share of federal taxes than they did when Ronald Reagan first took office.
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a ...[text shortened]... o go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
Please see: (More Progressive All the Time) http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-american-scene
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe errors and ommisions in the article that you site is manipulative. In most professions mistakes like this would lead to disciplinary actions. But alas Journalists are allowed to manipulate, it is part of the creative process.
Your conjecture is wrong. In fact, the wealthiest Americans now pay a significantly greater share of federal taxes than they did when Ronald Reagan first took office.
Please see: (More Progressive All the Time) http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-american-scene
The postulate of the article is that the tax system have become increasingly progressive, meaning that the tax burden of the richest have increased over proportional to their wealth gain.
Lets look at the two groups attracting most interest in the article the lowest quintile and the highest quintile (the buttom 20% earners and the top 20% earners).
The article states that the share of federal taxes contributed by the lowest quintile have decreased from 1.8 to 0.8% from 1981-2005. Conversely the share of federal tax contributed by the top quintile increased 56.4 to 68.7%.
It then goes on to make the false claim that this means that the tax system have become more progressive.
Here is is why the last claim is incorrect.
In the same period the average income (measured in 2005 dollars) of the lowest quintile rose aprox 5%, the average income of the highest quintile rose by aprox 80%. In general the higher your quintile the higher the real earnings increase you enjoyed. In other words, in 1981 the rich were cutting the largest fraction of the cake (hence the name “rich&rdquo😉, today they cut an even larger fraction of the cake for them self.
As a matter of fact in 1981 the top quintile were earning 44% of the cake, today they earn 54% of the cake, that is a 23% increase in their share.
Their share of the tax cake rose from 56,4% to 68,7%, guess what, that is a 22% increase.
So yes the tax system is progressiv, but not increasingly so. In fact for the richest the progression decreased.
The rich got richer and the poor stayed poor, actually they stayed just as poor as they started.
And with social mobility being comparatively low in the US there is a good chance that it is exactly the same families that were poor in 1981 that is still poor in 2005 (imigration may counter that effect ?).
For my own part I think that it suits my own interests and the long term interests of the society I live in to have a substantial redistribution of wealth in order to provide education and social security to all citicens. This is not the path of the US tax system over the past 25 years in question.
This may be the wealth distribution policy that you are happy with, it is any contries own choice to make.
But don’t call it an increasingly progressive taxation policy, because that is an outright lie.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by 667joeOh MY Gawd! Another Nobel Economist who shat his brains out through is food-orifice and inhaled so quickly he took in a complete, shiny, working set of Marxist bullshivit!
All patriots, by definition, want a strong country, yet a country can't be strong if it is mired in debt. This country could get out of debt if the very wealthy paid the same tax rate as the middle and lower classes.Some one who makes a million dollars per year pays social security at a rate only one tenth that of some one who makes one hundred thousand a ...[text shortened]... o go up to at least the same rates the rest of us pay. This is a simple matter of patriotism!
What did you do in the life just before this one? Amoeba or Sponge?
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by StarValleyWySo, you are not willing to pay for a strong country. You don't sound like a patriot to me.
Oh MY Gawd! Another Nobel Economist who shat his brains out through is food-orifice and inhaled so quickly he took in a complete, shiny, working set of Marxist bullshivit!
What did you do in the life just before this one? Amoeba or Sponge?