The only way to end corruption at the IRS is to

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HOGAN?

Youre fulla more shit than the ObamaCare Law.

Every pol and VIP in America knows how to escape real capital gains, and the peasants get tagged paying tax on inflation.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Yeah you're correct, it was briefly dropped to 28% then went back up to 40%.

It was raised to 31% in 1991, then 39.6% in 1993. In 2003 it became 35%, then 39.6% just last year.

And I said as much...

No, what you said (since you seem to forget what you said after about an hour) was: "Early 1930s - temporary drop to 25% to combat the GD"

There was no "GD" in 1925, and in 1932 the top marginal tax rate was raised from 25% to 63%.

 

[mercury14]

Maybe I articulated it poorly. Here's what I was looking at:


http://static.squarespace.com/static/50060e33c4aa3dba773634ec/t/50edc4abe4b09e81d2813981/1357759660626/?format=750w

 

[Colonel Hogan]

HOGAN?

Youre fulla more shit than the ObamaCare Law.

Every pol and VIP in America knows how to escape real capital gains, and the peasants get tagged paying tax on inflation.

The discussion was not how to "escape" capital gains. The discussion was not that capital gains were not partially due to inflation.

The discussion was a refutation of your colossally ignorant statement that capital gainers "pocket squat" because capital gains "were entirely inflation."

Is it really this hard for you to admit you were wrong?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Maybe I articulated it poorly. Here's what I was looking at:


http://static.squarespace.com/stati...abe4b09e81d2813981/1357759660626/?format=750w

Ok, well, that's fine as far as it goes, but looking at the top marginal income tax rate really doesn't tell you much.

Most Americans didn't pay diddley-squat income tax until WWII.

For any income tax rate, top or otherwise, to have meaning, one has to know who's paying that rate in a given year.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Let's look at how the income tax started, first of all. It started, just like every big government rip-off of the American people, with a system that seemed very reasonable and unobtrusive. Americans were very resistant to the idea of an income tax, but it was sold as something that would barely affect most people. And so it was, at first —

Seven tax brackets: 1% to 7% in 1% increments.

The 1% tax was paid on the first $463,826 of income.
The 2% tax on income from $463,826 to $1,159,566, and so on until the 7% rate which was applied to anything over $11,595,657.

This was the income tax structure from 1913-1915.

Then, in 1916, they started turning up the heat. Fourteen tax brackets, the lowest being 2% (still for everything under $421,273), the highest 15% for anything over $42 million.

Up rates went again in 1917, and finally average people became involved. The low rate was still 2%, but only on income up to $35,874. Income at the $400k level was taxed at 9%. The highest rate was 67% for anything over $35 million.

In 1918, the low rate was raised again to 6% (up to $61k), then 12% and so on through 56 brackets, up to the high rate which was 77% of anything over $15 million.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The discussion was not how to "escape" capital gains. The discussion was not that capital gains were not partially due to inflation.

The discussion was a refutation of your colossally ignorant statement that capital gainers "pocket squat" because capital gains "were entirely inflation."

Is it really this hard for you to admit you were wrong?

I always admit when I'm wrong, but in this case I'm right. Capital gains is a scam to fleece middle income investors via inflation. The government knows how stoopid middle income people are, they chase every rumor and bubble until the charlatans and IRS clean them out.

 

[Ishmael]

Explain how someone who has to spend every dollar they earn just to buy gasoline, food and clothing is going to avoid the Fairtax. The idea of a prebate didn't come about because the 'poor' can avoid the tax by choosing to 'not buy'.

That IS the whole point of the pre-bate though, isn't it? The pre-bate essentially removes the tax burden for the purchase of the necessities of life. What is arguable is the threshold set for those necessities. The Fair Tax sets that threshold at the poverty level.

There is very little incentive for tax avoidance built into the Fair Tax, even for the retailer/service provider. It actually provides for an incentive to collect the tax (a percentage of tax collected rebated to the collector to offset administrative overhead).

The crux of the naysayers argument is that "it's not perfect." No system of taxation ever is but that is hardly an excuse to continue to support the current system that has been used as a source of political intimidation, reward, and social engineering virtually since it's inception.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

That IS the whole point of the pre-bate though, isn't it? The pre-bate essentially removes the tax burden for the purchase of the necessities of life. What is arguable is the threshold set for those necessities. The Fair Tax sets that threshold at the poverty level.

There is very little incentive for tax avoidance built into the Fair Tax, even for the retailer/service provider. It actually provides for an incentive to collect the tax (a percentage of tax collected rebated to the collector to offset administrative overhead).

The crux of the naysayers argument is that "it's not perfect." No system of taxation ever is but that is hardly an excuse to continue to support the current system that has been used as a source of political intimidation, reward, and social engineering virtually since it's inception.

Ishmael

Study after study has shown a direct correalation between high tax rates and tax avoidance rates.

But hai, don't let reality intrude upon your little fantasy world.

 

[kbate]

That IS the whole point of the pre-bate though, isn't it? The pre-bate essentially removes the tax burden for the purchase of the necessities of life. What is arguable is the threshold set for those necessities. The Fair Tax sets that threshold at the poverty level.

There is very little incentive for tax avoidance built into the Fair Tax, even for the retailer/service provider. It actually provides for an incentive to collect the tax (a percentage of tax collected rebated to the collector to offset administrative overhead).

The crux of the naysayers argument is that "it's not perfect." No system of taxation ever is but that is hardly an excuse to continue to support the current system that has been used as a source of political intimidation, reward, and social engineering virtually since it's inception.

Ishmael

The crux of the argument is that I paid $xxx,xxx in taxes last year - but only spent $xx,xxx on purchases and services meaning I pay only $xx,xxx*.23 in taxes (or so depending on rate). You see, I saved money, made no large purchases and basically would have paid less than $15000 in total federal taxes for 2012 were we operating under Fairtax.

How are you going to operate the government if the upper middle can avoid taxes by just living on what they need?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The crux of the argument is that I paid $xxx,xxx in taxes last year - but only spent $xx,xxx on purchases and services meaning I pay only $xx,xxx*.23 in taxes (or so depending on rate). You see, I saved money, made no large purchases and basically would have paid less than $15000 in total federal taxes for 2012 were we operating under Fairtax.

How are you going to operate the government if the upper middle can avoid taxes by just living on what they need?

Firespin and I cited a study the last time we annihilated AJ's Fair Tax argument that showed that a family's spending typically matched their income level up to $150,000.

Spending as a percent of income tailed off drastically ove $150,000 per year, so the so-called Fair Tax essentially gives a huge tax break to the upper bracket folks.