Tax the Rich?

[Matt12191982]

Most don't pay any in federal income taxes and many get REFUNDS!

The rich do none of the work, they just collect.

"Worker of the world.... QUIT!"

 

[gunthernehmen]

Most don't pay any in federal income taxes and many get REFUNDS!

The rich do none of the work, they just collect.

"Worker of the world.... QUIT!"

Except the highest earning 1% of all those paying taxes pay 40% of all taxes collected.

 

[phrodeau]

Except the highest earning 1% of all those paying taxes pay 40% of all taxes collected.

Of course their taxes need to be collected before they can be refunded. Your point fails to land.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Of course their taxes need to be collected before they can be refunded. Your point fails to land.

You just lost all credibility.

Go ahead and dig your hole deeper. Tonight I'll look up the source for the fact that I posted. Or you can. It's not hard to find. Of course since it doesn't agree with your prejudiced views you'll ignore it, but whatever.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Of course their taxes need to be collected before they can be refunded. Your point fails to land.

Phro, I owe you an apology. I was wrong. The top 1% do NOT pay 40% of the total taxes paid. It's only 39%. Mea culpa.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

However, that richest 1% does get stuck paying an average tax rate a little more than 7 times the average tax rate paid by those of us in the bottom 50%.

I think you'll find a link there to the raw data. Heck if you're lucky you might even find Trumps tax return in there!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Phro, I owe you an apology. I was wrong. The top 1% do NOT pay 40% of the total taxes paid. It's only 39%. Mea culpa.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

However, that richest 1% does get stuck paying an average tax rate a little more than 7 times the average tax rate paid by those of us in the bottom 50%.

I think you'll find a link there to the raw data. Heck if you're lucky you might even find Trumps tax return in there!

Funny how they always go quiet when they realize they already have what they been bleating about for years.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I notice too that none of them have even come close to bothering to address my actual arguments.

What arguments?

All you do is name call and manipulate other peoples posts.

 

[DawnODay]

Connecticut became the last state to enact an income tax in 1991, introducing a flat 4.5 percent income tax rate. In 1996, the state decided to phase in a progressive income tax featuring tax brackets with a 3 percent tax rate and a 4.5 percent tax rate. This income tax relief was short lived. In the time since phasing in the income tax, the median household has seen their income tax rates increase by more than 13 percent. Today, Connecticut has seven income tax brackets with marginal income tax rates ranging from 3 to 6.99 percent.

Connecticut’s decision to enact an income tax had immediate negative effects on the state’s economy, initially costing the state’s economy more than $4 billion, with the economic cost growing to $10 billion following the decision to make the income tax progressive and to gradually raise rates.

The effects of the tax changes are consistent with the expert literature on the subject. Economists widely agree that tax hikes have adverse effects on economic output. They also agree that progressive tax structures reduce economic growth even more than flat tax structures. Connecticut’s results provide additional evidence that tax increases are highly contractionary.

Connecticut’s tax changes had similar effects for workers. The tax increase initially cost the state nearly 233,000 jobs and worsened after the switch to a progressive income tax, with the state losing a total of 362,000 jobs....

After the flat income tax was enacted, 12,000 more Connecticut residents found themselves living in poverty. After the tax became progressive the problem worsened, with 64,000 individuals falling below the line.​

O. Divounguy, B. Hill, S. Chattopadhyay, How Connecticut’s ‘tax on the rich’ ended in middle-class tax hikes, lost jobs and more poverty, Illinois Policy (accessed Mar 17, 2019) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

 

[lilsarah91]

Hey Dawnoday,

You do know that post World War II, the tax rate on the rich was 90%, And that lasted all the way up until Nixon, who lowered it down to 70%. Then Ronald Reagan lowered it to 20%. During those decades, the United States had the greatest economic growth it is ever had in the history of this country. But go ahead and tell me how raising tax rates on the rich so they start paying their fair share, is bad. You do know that Bank of America paid absolutely zero in taxes last year. Right??? I paid more I'm taxes than the largest bank in the United States. Do you actually, honestly think that's fair?

 

[DawnODay]

Hey Dawnoday,

You do know that post World War II, the tax rate on the rich was 90%, And that lasted all the way up until Nixon, who lowered it down to 70%. Then Ronald Reagan lowered it to 20%. During those decades, the United States had the greatest economic growth it is ever had in the history of this country. But go ahead and tell me how raising tax rates on the rich so they start paying their fair share, is bad. You do know that Bank of America paid absolutely zero in taxes last year. Right??? I paid more I'm taxes than the largest bank in the United States. Do you actually, honestly think that's fair?

There is so much wrong with this analysis that it's hard to know where to start. In summary, it is such a gross oversimplification, and thereby misrepresentation, of the facts that any informed and serious student of economic history would laugh at it. I did.

Your statements about nominal tax rates (which actually varied more than you suggest, but that's not where your analysis stumbles) might have some legitimacy if actual marginal rates remained constant across income levels across that entire period, but that is not what happened. While the top marginal rates were approximately how you represent, the lower rates varied in such a way that greatly impacted the amounts paid by various income levels. You also fail to take into account a number other significant of factors, e.g.: variations in available deductions and tax credits across that time frame; what economists call "bracket creep," where inflation moves people with effectively lower incomes into higher tax brackets; amortization and depreciation schedule changes; different rates and application of capital gains taxes; etc. Until you take all these factors into account, your statements about tax rates are meaningless.

In reality, for these and a variety of other reasons, decreases in the top marginal rates have had little impact on the effective tax rates of the wealthiest taxpayers over time.

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade. However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s....

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent....

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.​

S. Greenberg, Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s, Tax Foundation (Aug. 4, 2017) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Also, the top income earners actually have a higher share of the tax burden than they have had in the past.

In fact, as the top marginal income tax rate has fallen, the top 1 percent’s income tax burden has increased. In 1986, the top marginal income tax rate was 50 percent, and the top 1 percent paid 25.8 percent of all income taxes; thirty years later, the top marginal income tax rate had fallen to 39.6 percent, but the top 1 percent’s share of income taxes had risen to 37.3 percent.​

R. Bellafiore, The Top 1 Percent’s Tax Rates Over Time, Tax Foundation (Mar. 5, 2019) (emphasis added).

You express concerns about fairness. Is it fair that 1 percent of the population pays over 37 percent of taxes while 44 percent pay nothing at all? Q. Fottrell, More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax, MarketWatch (Feb. 26, 2019) ("Approximately 76.4 million or 44.4% of Americans won’t pay any federal income tax in 2018, up from 72.6 million people or 43.2% in 2016 before President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act"). As for your personal situation vis-a-vis Bank of America, I have no opinion without examining in detail both your and its financials. Did you pay more than you needed to? Did Bank of America engage in tax evasion? Without knowing such things, how can anyone judge if either of you paid what is "fair"?

Lastly, your assertion about economic growth in the post-war era is tremendously simplistic. It ignores a number of other historical and economic factors besides tax rates. Further, while what you say about economic growth is true as a general trend, there were significant periods of economic stagnation during those times, including three -- the Eisenhower Recession, the Ford/Carter "Stagflation," and the Obama Malaise -- which were in large part cured by tax cuts implemented under, respectively Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump.

 

[dan_c00000]

All of this is copypasta and wrong.

It's not like the historical tax rate can't be found easily. Sorry racist dawn, you lost that one.

You're about to get owned ever harder:

Unfortunately, Greenberg commits some basic errors in formulating his conclusion that “the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.” The total national income share earned by the top 1% and top 0.1% in that era was far lower than it is now, and consequently, the income thresholds required for entry into the ranks of the top 1% or the top 0.1% were lower. By today’s standards, there were many fewer rich households in the 1950s than there are now—in fact, almost none. The rich people from the 1950s that Greenberg is comparing to the rich of today were what we would now call the upper middle class—thus, not an apples-to-apples comparison. Had there been any 2017-style rich people in those days, they would likely have faced an effective tax rate near that confiscatory statutory rate of 91%.

Poor racist dawn. Can't even pick a pro-business biased source without getting owned twice in one post.

This is so easy dawn it isn't even fun anymore. You trigger so easily. Even more than your alt bot.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If I ever posted a message that doesn't accuse the person I'm quoting of being a racist, people might actually read what I have to say.

Woe is me...

Knowing this is the hardest part

I'm rooting for you, Dan!

 

[dan_c00000]

I'm dawn's racist alt.

Why are you so easily triggered? Another successful unmasking!

I didn't read all of dawn's copypasta because if I want to read bullshit from racist I'll head on over to Fox "News" but it should be noted that since the 1960s the U.S. tax rate has become less progressive. Meaning the rich have paid less and the middle class have paid more. And despite whatever bullshit dawn will read or be told the companies in the U.S., when accounting for weight of their economies, pay about the same tax rate or less than other countries in the G-7.

 

[BaritoneTele]

But go ahead and tell me how raising tax rates on the rich so they start paying their fair share, is bad.

They pay almost all the taxes so far....how is that not their fair share?

When will the bottom 50% pitch in and start paying their fair share?

You do know that Bank of America paid absolutely zero in taxes last year. Right???

Along with most corporations with a decent management team and legal/accounting services.

Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them, welcome to the real world.

I paid more I'm taxes than the largest bank in the United States. Do you actually, honestly think that's fair?

Add up all the fees/licencing/permits they spent to stay in business (taxes) and all the taxes the employees paid.

When you realize you couldn't come up with that much money if you had 100 lifetimes come back and we'll talk.

 

[KeithD]

They pay almost all the taxes so far....how is that not their fair share?

The rich don't pay taxes. They avoid paying their taxes. They have accountants and tax loopholes to serve this activity. Trump himself has said this is what smart people do. What taxes would you think Trump pays?

 

[BaritoneTele]

The rich don't pay taxes.

US government says otherwise.

They avoid paying their taxes. They have accountants and tax loopholes to serve this activity. Trump himself has said this is what smart people do. What taxes would you think Trump pays?

You're conflating paying attention to tax code and using it to your advantage to tax evasion.

Those two are not the same thing.

Trump pays the income/capital gains taxes he owes, how is that relevant?

When will the lower 50% start paying their fair share and cough up their 40%??

 

[KeithD]

US government says otherwise.



You're conflating paying attention to tax code and using it to your advantage to tax evasion.

Those two are not the same thing.

Trump pays the income/capital gains taxes he owes, how is that relevant?

When will the lower 50% start paying their fair share and cough up their 40%??

Bullshit. I'm paying attention to actual money being paid. The rich don't pay what the tax code says they are paying, so you can forget that in terms of money actually transferred. And I'm willing to bet that Trump doesn't pay a dime in taxes. Let's look at his tax returns to see if he does. No, wait . . .

 

[gunthernehmen]

If I ever posted a message that doesn't accuse the person I'm quoting of being a racist, people might actually read what I have to say.

Woe is me...

Sorry Dan. I sorta tuned you out after the word racist, so whatever you posted I missed. Pretty sure everyone but your fellow racists did as well.

 

[BaritoneTele]

Bullshit.

Proof the IRS is wrong?

I'm paying attention to actual money being paid.The rich don't pay what the tax code says they are paying, so you can forget that in terms of money actually transferred.

If that's true and you really are paying attention and have the details why don't you report them for tax evasion??

I'm sure the IRS would be interested in such information.

And I'm willing to bet that Trump doesn't pay a dime in taxes. Let's look at his tax returns to see if he does. No, wait . . .

Sure....not that your hatred of Trump is relevant to anything.

Do you have anything to support your assertion that the IRS is lying and the top 20% aren't covering the vast majority of the income/capital gains taxes?

Also, when when will the lower 50% start paying their fair share?

 

[KeithD]

You're not too bright, are you?

Why do you think Trump won't show us his taxes like any other candidate for president has? What do you think he was saying when he was saying smart people don't pay taxes?

Finally, who in the hell do you think you're fooling?

 

[BaritoneTele]

You're not too bright, are you?

Why do you think Trump won't show us his taxes like any other candidate for president has? What do you think he was saying when he was saying smart people don't pay taxes?

Finally, who in the hell do you think you're fooling?

Ohhhh ad hominem and another irrelevant Trump deflection instead of citing proof of your absurd claims that the rich don't pay taxes.

Imagine my shock

 

[KeithD]

The proof is right there for everyone to see. Who do you think you're fooling? Don't act so dumb. I'm not playing your silly deflection and distraction game.

And now that's enough of your Trumpian crap.

 

[BaritoneTele]

The proof is right there for everyone to see.

All the easier for you to cite then......well???

And now that's enough of your Trumpian crap.

You're obsessed with that guy, he's not even relevant to the topic.

You say the rich don't pay taxes and proof is right there for everyone to see and the IRS is full of shit.

But can't cite any support for that position.

That generally means you're wrong, and Trump has NOTHING to do with that.

 

[KeithD]

As reported here, Trump has avoided paying taxes and says he does--just like the rest of the rich do in avoiding paying what the code claims they pay.

https://www.ajc.com/news/trump-gets-chance-for-tax-cut-moving-trademarks/iZBFIqAmXhM62j1aZoKthO/

 

[jaF0]

You're not too bright, are you?

Which BB is this that got booted and reincarnated?