Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Does this chart means the US had a 100% taxrate and can it happen again?

  1. #11

    Default Progressive Taxation

    There are several reasons to have progressive taxation. Here are some.

    1) Without progressive taxation, wealth tends to accumulate with the already-wealthy. You can see that over the last two decades, actually, to a degree. As our taxes have gotten lower and flatter, the rich have gotten MUCH richer, but the middle class has declined.

    2) A flat tax, which is highly regressive, would need to be around 30%, not 14%. So the middle-class and the poor would pay substantially more in taxes (the poor a WHOLE LOT more, coming out of food money or car money or lodging money) and the rich would pay less to balance that out. Unless you ARE quite rich, voting for a flat tax means you'd be saying, 'Hey, I want to pay more in taxes, so rich people can pay less!' You really want to pay more in taxes so rich people can have more money? I don't.

    3) Rich people pay more in taxes because they use more of the stuff that taxes pay for. They have more cars, more houses, more valuables that need protecting from ciminals. Many poor people don't use roads (no car), don't have a home for fire departments to ever have to put out, don't have anything worth protecting from criminals. It costs money and time to protect the stuff owned by rich people FROM poor people.

    4) The French Revolution scenario. When too much wealth gets too concentrated in too few hands, you end up with the non-rich tearing the joint apart, executing the rich, taking (or burning) all of their stuff, and starting over with a more fair system that doesn't concentrate all the wealth into too few hands. We're approaching this now. In the Lost Bush Decade, the wealth disparity in this country has grown to scary levels, even as the common man suffers ever more -- just as was the case prior to the French killing all of their rich people off. In part that's because Bush gave the super-rich a truly massive tax cut (which he put on the national debt, so your kids will be paying that bill). That tax cut was so huge that Warren Buffett had labeled it 'welfare for the rich' and wondered why the country had enough money to give HIM even more (and we actually didn't, which is why Bush charged your kids for that), even as the common man in the middle class was suffering more and more. In other words, the rich pay more in taxes because if they don't, everyone else is gonna burn all their stuff and make life very unpleasant for them. They're paying for a secure and stable social environment in which to store their vast wealth.

    So I wouldn't be pushing for any flat tax if I were you...unless you really do want to pay higher taxes so that Warren Buffett can get just a little richer. A flat tax would result in more wealth concentration also, and would ultimately doom us to the French Revolution scenario and anarchy. The rich, at least the educated ones, know this.
    Last edited by jamstigator; 12-26-2009 at 06:35 PM.
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- President George Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    It doesnt work.....

    Australia Introduced a GST and had basic flat tax rates on wages....a few years back...and we were ALL TOLD, this would be It...the Ultimate tax that will save you money, and put more money In the Peoples hands...whilst enabling the Government to continue Its spending projects

    What a croc of crap, now that I understand how the system actually does work!!

    But over the years, this has degraded, and further taxes have been added, under the guise of other names, and for reasons such as doing supposed good things....

    For example...the Bushfires we had here a couple of years back....Introduce a temporary tax...then rename It later, and make it a permanent slush fund, that generates millions, but what happens to all that cash...

    When we have another Bushfire...and we will, because the Government In their wisdom does not allow burning off, something The Aborigines practiced for 40,000 years, you will still see the Charities having to do the vast majority, of aid, and calling for donations, and we will probably even have another Telephon, on TV, to raise money.....and not one word will be mentioned, of systems that were supposedly set up previously, and that are now being used to line Politicians pockets, with Wage Increases, and other of their cronified, pet projects, or to maintain their Political Power...

    It makes me wonder, what a Bushfire will cost us, If this carbon tax crap, ever gets Introduced...

    Its a Joke.....the whole system...

    People have short memories.....and the majority, are nothing more, than units.......and continue to fall for all the BS......so I find It pretty hard to have a great deal of sympathy, for most...

    Cheers

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamstigator View Post
    There are several reasons to have progressive taxation. Here are some.

    1) Without progressive taxation, wealth tends to accumulate with the already-wealthy. You can see that over the last two decades, actually, to a degree. As our taxes have gotten lower and flatter, the rich have gotten MUCH richer, but the middle class has declined..
    Some of the middle class has gotten rich. Like me. I used to be squarely middle class punching a union time card. Since then, in 2005, went into business, and I have become "Obama-rich" by all of his quoted figures.

    Net effect - one less middle class earner. One more rich guy.

    Can't have THAT, huh?

    Top 25% earners pay 86% of income taxes. What's fair - 100%?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamstigator View Post
    2) A flat tax, which is highly regressive, would need to be around 30%, not 14%. So the middle-class and the poor would pay substantially more in taxes (the poor a WHOLE LOT more, coming out of food money or car money or lodging money) and the rich would pay less to balance that out. Unless you ARE quite rich, voting for a flat tax means you'd be saying, 'Hey, I want to pay more in taxes, so rich people can pay less!' You really want to pay more in taxes so rich people can have more money? I don't.
    The Fair Tax (written by Boortz / Linder) proposes that a prebate is given to all at or below the poverty level - the 23% tax is given to them up front, so they remain untaxed even while spending all of their money.

    The problem is - they currently pay NEGATIVE tax. Zero is a comparably bad deal. It's called Earned Income Tax Credit. Read about it. They get redistributive wealth every tax season.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamstigator View Post
    3) Rich people pay more in taxes because they use more of the stuff that taxes pay for. They have more cars, more houses, more valuables that need protecting from ciminals. Many poor people don't use roads (no car), don't have a home for fire departments to ever have to put out, don't have anything worth protecting from criminals. It costs money and time to protect the stuff owned by rich people FROM poor people..
    Rich folks also create jobs with all that consumption. Working folks build all those things. And when you tax us - we buy fewer fancy cars, fewer big houses, and have fewer baubles made by working folks - because government becomes the spender of those dollars. They give it to AIG, GM, Citi, Fannie, and Freddie - and they tell you it's for your own good.


    And you must believe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamstigator View Post
    4) The French Revolution scenario. When too much wealth gets too concentrated in too few hands, you end up with the non-rich tearing the joint apart, executing the rich, taking (or burning) all of their stuff, and starting over with a more fair system that doesn't concentrate all the wealth into too few hands. We're approaching this now. In the Lost Bush Decade, the wealth disparity in this country has grown to scary levels, even as the common man suffers ever more -- just as was the case prior to the French killing all of their rich people off. In part that's because Bush gave the super-rich a truly massive tax cut (which he put on the national debt, so your kids will be paying that bill). That tax cut was so huge that Warren Buffett had labeled it 'welfare for the rich' and wondered why the country had enough money to give HIM even more (and we actually didn't, which is why Bush charged your kids for that), even as the common man in the middle class was suffering more and more. In other words, the rich pay more in taxes because if they don't, everyone else is gonna burn all their stuff and make life very unpleasant for them. They're paying for a secure and stable social environment in which to store their vast wealth.
    Nope - wars fix that. They draft the poor people which reduces unemployment. A few million of them are killed, and the rich get richer.
    Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics make a ton. Bankers make a ton. Napoleonic Wars killed more French than the French Revolution ever dreamed of. I served eight years - FAIR would be if everyone else did, too. There is no FAIR.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamstigator View Post
    So I wouldn't be pushing for any flat tax if I were you...unless you really do want to pay higher taxes so that Warren Buffett can get just a little richer. A flat tax would result in more wealth concentration also, and would ultimately doom us to the French Revolution scenario and anarchy. The rich, at least the educated ones, know this.
    The real protests regarding a Flat Tax are traditional tax evaders. Pimps, Drug Dealers, Illegal Arms Dealers, cash earners who do not report income or paay taxes. These folks get taxed under a Fair tax, which is collected as a Sales Tax on all goods and services.

    I say - they will be less inclined to like tax hikes, when they finally have some skin in the game. They need to pay some taxes themselves.
    - UPDATED-
    2.4 BILLION people still cook with manure as their fuel.
    3.0 BILLION more people will be born in the next 30 years.

    IEA, Number of people without access to clean cooking by scenario, 2021-2030, IEA, Paris

    More energy. Not less.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca38 View Post
    It doesnt work.....

    Australia Introduced a GST and had basic flat tax rates on wages....a few years back...and we were ALL TOLD, this would be It...the Ultimate tax that will save you money, and put more money In the Peoples hands...whilst enabling the Government to continue Its spending projects

    What a croc of crap, now that I understand how the system actually does work!!

    But over the years, this has degraded, and further taxes have been added, under the guise of other names, and for reasons such as doing supposed good things....

    For example...the Bushfires we had here a couple of years back....Introduce a temporary tax...then rename It later, and make it a permanent slush fund, that generates millions, but what happens to all that cash...

    When we have another Bushfire...and we will, because the Government In their wisdom does not allow burning off, something The Aborigines practiced for 40,000 years, you will still see the Charities having to do the vast majority, of aid, and calling for donations, and we will probably even have another Telephon, on TV, to raise money.....and not one word will be mentioned, of systems that were supposedly set up previously, and that are now being used to line Politicians pockets, with Wage Increases, and other of their cronified, pet projects, or to maintain their Political Power...

    It makes me wonder, what a Bushfire will cost us, If this carbon tax crap, ever gets Introduced...

    Its a Joke.....the whole system...

    People have short memories.....and the majority, are nothing more, than units.......and continue to fall for all the BS......so I find It pretty hard to have a great deal of sympathy, for most...

    Cheers

    a government has never met the tax that it could not explain some way to keep it, or re-name it, so it can call it necessary, instead of temporary..
    $x8(1 half-dollar, 1 quarter, 1 dime)
    "Buy when there's blood in the streets, even if the blood is your own." Baron Rothschild
    John 15:13 -"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karlus View Post
    $150K back in Eisenhower's day is some decent coin. Which is exactly why dentists didn't work Fridays...it made no difference income wise and it was better to golf.




    Again, very relevant. You now punish the "bad guy" fat cat, and look who gets nailed. Many people had second jobs to cover this problem. But these second jobs typically were underemployment jobs (housecleaning...etc).

    God forbid we cut govt spending and do something really silly like a 14% flat tax. That is just horrible.

    The headline is "fat cats make too much money" but the reality is putting a complex ruleset in place makes the populace happy and wins elections, but is really a dumb move economically.

    The only problem with that is the flat tax would have to be about 35% and only the wealthy would benefit. You cannot simply stop the entitlement programs without a long long term phaseout, probably 40 years or so.

  6. #16

    Default

    The only problem with that is the flat tax would have to be about 35% and only the wealthy would benefit.
    In 2004, there were 130 million income tax returns filed, representing $831.890 billion on $6,875 billion in income. This means that nationwide, a 12.1% flat tax on all income would generate the exact same amount of revenue.

    Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
    When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.- Ayn Rand

  7. #17

    Default

    A flat tax, which is highly regressive, would need to be around 30%, not 14%...Rich people pay more in taxes because they use more of the stuff that taxes pay for. They have more cars, more houses, more valuables that need protecting from ciminals.
    I get tired of hearing this tripe. At a flat rate of 12%, a person making $100K will pay 5 times the tax of a person making $20K. What the system is now, is a person making $100K pays an average of 22% in income taxes. A person making $20K pays less than 2%. That means that the person making $100K pays about $22,000 in income tax, and the $20K worker pays $400- he makes 5 times as much, but pays 50 times the taxes.

    You call that fair? I don't.
    When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.- Ayn Rand

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    After subtracting out the inflation rate (as per shadowstats), was the economy growing faster before or after the Reagan tax cuts?

  9. #19

    Default

    I'm a libertarian and my view is that taxation is wrong in the first place. Taxation is simply confiscation of property by government. There is little difference between government stealing your money versus them taking your cars, jewelry, or any physical possesions.

    But if you had to tax, I would definetely support the flat tax because it wouldn't penalize you just because you made a certain income. What is it about the rich that they should pay a far higher percentage than anyone else? The economy would be nothing without entrepreneurs and sucessful businessmens. Government would be nothing without those people either - a good thing. The top 1% already pay 35-40 percent of all taxes. The rich earned their money. They didn't steal it. Government steals your money and distributes it to those who are most likely to vote them back in office (the poor, the "disadvantaged", etc).
    Last edited by asusenior; 12-28-2009 at 01:25 PM.

  10. #20

    Default

    Look what year that tax rate was & think about what was going on at that time.

    it wouldn't penalize you just because you made a certain income.

    Unless you made a low income, then a proportionally higher part of your expendible income would go towards taxes.
    AgoraPhobic?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •