A factor overlooked by income taxaholics is that the wealthy they scheme to get more income tax revenue from have the ability to determine what their income is and how to make their wealth grow while receiving less of it as income.
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 7:05:27 PM
The result is when you raise tax rates on the wealthy, the wealthy as a group end up sending the federal government less tax revenue and this is all done legally.
Obama's greed will result in his administration receiving less tax revenue than his scheme calls for.
Obama has already taxed the middle class and the poor by decreasing the value of the dollar. The only way to prevent the dollar losing all its value is to increase taxes on the middle class and collect taxes from the poor. Increasing the value of the dollar later will result in the economy going into recession. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
When the dollar loses all its value, all entitlement programs will be worthless, the poor, the middle class, and the government will all suffer.
Who do you think is the largest single contributing entity to the wealthiest people? Goldman Sachs? General Motors? General Dynamics?
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2012 4:05:06 PM
No, it is the United States government. It has been that way since WWII. For those of you who guessed the U.S. Defense department, that entity is a subsidiary of the big enchilada.
Every time a corporation lands a big government contract, their shareholders make money. It is a virtual guarantee.
Seems to me that the ones who get the most out of the system should not be the ones that contribute the lowest percentage of that gain.
Oh, on the other side of that coin, the US Defense Dept is the largest single employer in the entire world.
Want a job?
Agreed Eugene, and you can't get blood from a turnip either. Obama is going to tax the richest Americans to pay for social programs without cutting them back. You know, everyone making $50,000 a year or more.
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 11:45:48 PM
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 12:02:41 PM
Expressing what percentage of revenue is paid by the highest X% really isn't worthwhile data. It doesn't tell us how many taxpayers make up that 1%, nor does it say what their tax rates are, both of which are variables that can make two comparisons into apples and oranges.
The top tax rate for the top tax bracket is now 35%. Sixty years ago it was more than twice that -- over 90%. Of course the top bracket was higher then too, so that's a THIRD variable.
In that time of 90% tax bracket, the POTUS noted:
"we cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income, until we have in sight a program of expenditures that shows that the factors of income and of outgo will be balanced." -- Dwight Eisenhower (R) February 1953, shortly after beginning the first of his two terms
In the Reagan era that top rate came a-tumbling down down trickle-down, from 70% in 1981 to 31% ten years later. That's what Reagan did for us. Oops, check that-- that's what Reagan did for THEM (I assume anyone who's on this website is by definition not rich).
And just to note, this article linked in the OP is an editorial. I figured it needed some facts to flesh it out and give it direction.
It's all about historical perspective. Can't make policies in a vacuum.
[Edited by: EKEugene at 11/13/2012 12:05:31 PM EST]
A: >>during the Bush Presidency were $2,568 trillion in the year 2007, having grown almost 45% from 2003 (the year of the Bush tax rate changes) when Federal tax revenue had fallen to $1,782 trillion.<<
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 11:50:59 AM
Right you are, Tim, the USA's current tax scheme is the most progressive in the entire world!
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2012 11:50:10 AM
But......It's a Bad Time To Be Rich
In spite of all they pay already:
"Hiking tax rates on $1 million-plus earners to the levels Obama has proposed would raise, at most, about $70 billion per year, according to data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That would only cut this year's projected deficit by about 8 percent. Lowering the threshold for tax hikes to $250,000 would still only generate about $83 billion--less than 10 percent of the annual deficit."
"Most budget experts realize that there's no way to truly shrink the national debt without raising taxes on the middle class, plus cutting programs such as Medicare and Social Security, that directly serve a lot of ordinary people."
Most budget experts are largely ignored by Congress and by the media. Who wants to hear that kind of truth? It's not popular!