20 Dec 08
Originally posted by uzlessI agree that personal research would be a good thing, but I was wrong on this one but the actual numbers prove the same thing anyway.
if you doubt this number why not get off your ass and do your own search?
Why do people on here always demand sources when they could just as easily find the info themselves?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you think someone is lying, then disprove them!
You'll note that the original assertion was that the rich aren't paying their fair share, and ought to be soaked some more. That, was totally unsubstantiated, and supported only by the claim that they avoid paying taxes with lots of shelters.
These are popular mythologies perpetuated by liberal politicians in the US who get to use phrases like, "Bush's tax cuts for the rich", without an iota of numerical analysis or proof of any kind.
Bush's tax cuts clearly resulted in "the rich" getting the greatest dollar reductions, but overall the percentages of the total tax burdens collected increased in upper income brackets, and the number of people who pay no income taxes increased, as well as the number of people who pay negative taxes, that is get welfare.
20 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignRush Limbaugh is hardly a credible source, but I'll just trust you on this one and assume the link to the IRS is actually there. What's wrong with 86% being paid by the top 25%? Heavily taxing the rich is good for the economy, mainly because they don't have much they can do it with the money themselves. Nominal wealth gains drop off exponentially, and someone with a decent wage (say, $200k) will spend almost all of their nominal income gains on goods which are positional or largely positional.
Sorry, I am in error, at least it appears so.
The number with regard to income taxes is 86% paid by the top 25% of income earners. Source is IRS data from last year reported, and can be linked to from rushlimbaugh.com
I'm not sure where I heard my original numbers, but when other taxes such as those on investments, personal property, excises, etc. from 2000 as well. Soaking the wealthy is not the way for the American economy to get well.
What bad things will happen if the income tax for the rich is increased in the US?
20 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydyep, thats my opinion.
That would be your opinion, but I warn you---you are percipitously close to an "insulting and/or degrading remark aimed at an individual."
Take the hint, and Back Off.
and no, Im not calling you stupid, don't be offended so easily.
What I meant was that isolation wouldn't be the best way to solve the problem.
21 Dec 08
The defense budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of the top of my head, and entitlements are about the same. Interest on the nationa debt is about 19%.
Social Security operates at a slight surplus, however it's actuarial unfunded liabilities are about to explode.
Defense, the Federal Courts, and the post office are the only mandated Constitutional programs.
Yes defense could be cut, but it makes sense to cut the stuff that isn't mandated by the Constitution first, and eliminate the interest by eliminating the debt. Can you imagine running a household budget with 19% of revenues going to interest payments?
21 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe links to the IRS data are there. Unlike you and I Limbaugh is a professional who is routinely challenged and is up to the challenge with sources for everything on his site.
Rush Limbaugh is hardly a credible source, but I'll just trust you on this one and assume the link to the IRS is actually there. What's wrong with 86% being paid by the top 25%? Heavily taxing the rich is good for the economy, mainly because they don't have much they can do it with the money themselves. Nominal wealth gains drop off exponentially, and s ...[text shortened]... tional.
What bad things will happen if the income tax for the rich is increased in the US?
"Heavily taxing the rich is good for the economy, mainly because they don't have much they can do it with the money themselves."
First there is the moral aspect of it. It is their money. No one else is entitled to use it unless they volunteer, that is donate it.
Second, is that their consumption stimulates the economy as much as anyone else's. What stimulates the economy more, the purchase of a Gulfstream Jet, or a Ford Focus? Ask the luxury boat building industry, after Bill Clinton slapped an excise tax on them. Boat building in the US ceased almost immediately, and those who bought luxury boats got them overseas. The tax generated negative revenues, and harmed the US economy.
Third, what the rich don't spend on consumption, they don't usually place under their pillow. Folks who know how to make money, also know how to make it generate more money. A dumb slug who wins multimillions in the lottery is usually broke and in debt 10 years later, because all of it was used in consumption. Those who earn large sums, reinvest much of it, placing it into markets as capital. That is how economies grow, and jobs are created. To accept pure demand side economics we have to believe the obvious myth that the government and the poor are better money managers than the rich who made the money in the first place.
21 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou should try to read a book on economics.
Rush Limbaugh is hardly a credible source, but I'll just trust you on this one and assume the link to the IRS is actually there. What's wrong with 86% being paid by the top 25%? Heavily taxing the rich is good for the economy, mainly because they don't have much they can do it with the money themselves. Nominal wealth gains drop off exponentially, and s ...[text shortened]... tional.
What bad things will happen if the income tax for the rich is increased in the US?
Most rich folk are good at making money, those that come by wealth by dumb luck rarely hold on to it.
And to make money, literally, to create wealth is one of the most noble pursuits there is, instead of putting obstacles in their path we should make the way as clear as possible, it is something I do for my employer at every possible opportunity, he could easily sell up and sit by the pool for the rest of his days, so I am grateful he keeps going, growing the business bigger and better, despite all the parasites i.e. you KN and all the other envy artists.
21 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaHow does increasing income tax reduce incentive to make money? These are more libertarian fairy tales. Increasing the nominal income tax rates keeps the relative income differences intact, which largely determine perception of wealth. If anything, it encourages people to start businesses rather than work as an employee. Now that can hardly be bad, can it?
You should try to read a book on economics.
Most rich folk are good at making money, those that come by wealth by dumb luck rarely hold on to it.
And to make money, literally, to create wealth is one of the most noble pursuits there is, instead of putting obstacles in their path we should make the way as clear as possible, it is something I do for my em ...[text shortened]... usiness bigger and better, despite all the parasites i.e. you KN and all the other envy artists.
On a side note, as a physicist I will very likely be more productive in my lifetime than you.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI see your point--I don't think the majority of super-rich people got that way "from the sweat of their brow"; blind $--thouse luck had more to do with it than anything else. But I don't see how taxing them more wouldn't lessen their incentive. If I were a corporation owner (one of the hardworking rich) and was told my taxes were to go up 15%, I can see myself saying "Self? Why not just retire rather than bust my hump and have the gov't take it?" So I close up shop, which helps neither the gov't, nor the people I just laid off.
How does increasing income tax reduce incentive to make money? These are more libertarian fairy tales. Increasing the nominal income tax rates keeps the relative income differences intact, which largely determine perception of wealth. If anything, it encourages people to start businesses rather than work as an employee. Now that can hardly be bad, can i ...[text shortened]...
On a side note, as a physicist I will very likely be more productive in my lifetime than you.
So I ask you, why are these lbertarian myths? I genuinely want to know and hope you have an answer, because at my core, I AM a yellow dog, bleedin' heart liberal,... and proud of it 😉
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by uzlessI know it might be a bit late to respond to this, but this is all backwards. If you want to prove something, then provide the relevant data yourself. (you know where to find it, if you base your argument on it) Don't ask the next 9000 people to search for something you can provide with a simple Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V.
if you doubt this number why not get off your ass and do your own search?
Why do people on here always demand sources when they could just as easily find the info themselves?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you think someone is lying, then disprove them!
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydKN is indeed wrong in part, I don't know how hightening taxes would be an incentive to start a business. However, increasing taxes for the super-rich probably doesn't create large disincentives. People will be unhappy because they earn "only" 450,00 $ instead of 500,000$, but if they stop working over that, they lose thos 450,000$, so very few will actually do that.
I see your point--I don't think the majority of super-rich people got that way "from the sweat of their brow"; blind $--thouse luck had more to do with it than anything else. But I don't see how taxing them more wouldn't lessen their incentive. If I were a corporation owner (one of the hardworking rich) and was told my taxes were to go up 15%, I can see ...[text shortened]... cause at my core, I AM a yellow dog, bleedin' heart liberal,... and proud of it 😉
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydhttp://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I see your point--I don't think the majority of super-rich people got that way "from the sweat of their brow"; blind $--thouse luck had more to do with it than anything else. But I don't see how taxing them more wouldn't lessen their incentive. If I were a corporation owner (one of the hardworking rich) and was told my taxes were to go up 15%, I can see ...[text shortened]... cause at my core, I AM a yellow dog, bleedin' heart liberal,... and proud of it 😉
Take the test.Report back. Granny happens to be Gandhi with a machine gun.
GRANNY.
21 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign90% IN TAXES!?!?! Give me a break!! Where did you get this information from? Rush Limbaugh? There are many rich people and companies in America that have paid less than 2% in taxes for decades! Remember when that dirty old LIBERAL Bill Clinton was President? America had a balanced budget, and a massive federal surplus. After 8 years of your supply side conservative idiot in the White House, America is swimming in red ink, and on the verge of a total economic collapse. Wake up and smell the coffee! 🙄
That is mythology. The top 10% of earners pay about 90% of taxes. Squeezing more out of the supposed rich, only limits the amount of wealth that can be applied to production as capital. Hell during the Obama campaign the definition of rich started out at $250,000 a year, and was at the end down to about $100k. When the income tax was first passed the spend it. The only time your liberty and money are safe is when Congress is not in session.