Taxation without representation, my man. You fail high school history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Printable View
Taxation without representation, my man. You fail high school history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
You lost me.
Under president Reagan, the top marginal rate dropped to 28%. I think it was 90% under Eisenhower, but 70% comes to mind, or did Kennedy drop it to 70%? I forget and have no plans to look it up right away.
Wait... I remembered where one particular chart is at. From the article The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...5082274.gif,32
OK, President Kennedy dropped it to 70%. President Reagan dropped the top marginal rate from 50% to 28%. As for president Obama raising the rates, hell yes. Historical trends shows that the government receives 18% +/- very little of the GNP (or was it GDP?). When you increase taxes, you decrease GNP, therefore decreasing revenue!
You know. I really don't want to go back to the 31% marginal rate for myself. Would you?
3% hike in marginal tax rates over Reagan.
It's tyranny!
No, the top marginal with Reagan's tax cuts were 28%. President Obama will take them to 39.6%!Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
What was the rate under Eisenhower again?
It was 91%. He never increased or decreased it. It was 92% when he took office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Income taxes started at 7% marginal for the rich, in 1913...
Eisenhower was a Marxist then?
More than twice the Marxist than Obama by my calculation. He believed in spreading the wealth around. As you say, he never decreased the rate of taxation.
Jumping to conclusions without all the facts, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I don't know the train of thought then, except that with that marginal rate of 91%, it was also for income above $400,000 before adjusting for inflation. That's somewhere between $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 inflation adjusted if I read a graph right from The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket. From a table in the article Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003, the 2003 top marginal is 35% at $311,950. Doesn't president Obama want to take that down to $200,000, and back to the 39.6% top marginal before the Bush tax cuts?
I don't know the history of that era except that the income tax was sold to the public for the constitutional amendment as only affecting the rich. Now we tax half the voters, enough voters to keep asking for more.
That's your speciality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I was teasing you, WC. The assertion was tongue-in-cheek.
You: all cheek.
No, you are jumping to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
That's not so unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I figured, but I wasn't sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Really, why should we have such a complicated tax system and such high rates? Eliminate loop holes and drop the rates for a minimum. I would prefer the Fair Tax, but I don't see that happening. You know what I would really like to see, that might be acceptable to enough people wanting to maintain the progressive income tax system...
Change the name of the Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance simply to "Social Tax," or some other politically correct name.
Currently, employers match 100% for a 15.3% total. (6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare)
Mandate that all employers give a raise to payroll tax employees by the 7.65%. Take the caps off SS as well.
Make the employee pay the full amount so they see what their work is really paying in social taxes. This would now be 14.21%
Leave the income tax rates alone. Any need to raise or lower taxes come from the new Social Tax. This way, all wage earners have skin in the game.
Socialism!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Everybody already has skin in the game. You'd take all the tax hikes out of wage earners. Who's the class warrior now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No, I simply want to tax a part of the government revenue that everyone already pays, and make it variable rather than fixed. Make the income tax rates fixed, that just over half the people end up contributing to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Everyone has skin in the game, but not when it comes to raising or lowering taxes. That can only be achieved by raising or lowering something everyone pays.
Do you really not understand my simple points? Are they going over your head, or are you being a shit?
You're not familiar with the difference between wages and rent are you? Not everyone gets their income from from wages.
But yeah, you're way over my head WC. Compared to me, you're a fucking cosmonaut. Enjoy the ride.
http://www.sportshollywood.com/images/dern2.jpg
The hilarity is to assume, as WC does, that megacorps actually pay their taxes at the government rate.
The reason the government is trying to close the loopholes in the first place is because they have hard data that says megacorps flat out don't pay what they owe.
I don't have that option as a your average citizen. I don't get to choose wether I want to pay the government rate or a discounted 2.3% rate.
This is exactly why trickle-down economics was a complete failure. In theory, as the corps grow bigger, they invest more, and everyone benefits. In reality, they keep cutting jobs, send them overseas, avoid paying taxes, and accumulate both money and power, so they can keep feeding the greed machine.
And when their gambles don't pan out? We bail them out!
I'm all for leveling the playing field at least just a bit. I just doubt this is going anywhere. I think these corps are already to powerful to do something about it.
can someone please explain why an appliance repairman is so obsessed with the financial success of the mega-wealthy?