Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor...

[jwlcosu]

...till there are no rich no more.

This is a great idea. Particularly because it will hit you high flying Michigan types way more than most.

 

[TheVictors]

Bill O called and wants his tired, decade old crap back.


And I don't mind my "high flying Michigan self" subsidizing your ghetto-ass buckeye life. As long as it's a tax write-off, I'm cool.

Want to split an order of Wings now? No prob...I will pay for them, I can afford it.

 

[jwlcosu]

And I don't mind my "high flying Michigan self" subsidizing your ghetto-ass buckeye life. As long as it's a tax write-off, I'm cool.

Why the contingency, Bro? You should want to give back for the sake of giving back. From each, to each, no? Equality and justice. You've got to do more and for the right reasons.

 

[Michchamp]

 

[tinselwolverine]

So somebody is suggesting a progressive income tax, and some kind of a social safety net?

Hmmm.

Curious.

 

[Sbee]

I can understand why 1% of the people take this argument, the rest, i don't get.

never mind the facts that consumer spending drives our economy and more money in the hands of people that have needs to meet will elevate everyone. there is no multiplier effect when the top earners give more money to fund managers to push paper.

i say that from a position where I pay more since the bush cuts expired but i understand economics and I have compassion.

 

[Michchamp]

I can understand why 1% of the people take this argument, the rest, i don't get.

never mind the facts that consumer spending drives our economy and more money in the hands of people that have needs to meet will elevate everyone. there is no multiplier effect when the top earners give more money to fund managers to push paper.

i say that from a position where I pay more since the bush cuts expired but i understand economics and I have compassion.

a certain notable part of that 99% has been well conditioned to reflexively hate (and I mean HATE) anything "liberal." Pundits, think tanks, etc. on the right just have to use a couple dog whistle terms to describe it, and their people will oppose it without thinking.

"A progressive tax structure? Al Sharpton is for it. YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU HEAR THE NAME AL SHARPTON, RIGHT? GRRRRR... HATE HATE HATE"

 

[tinselwolverine]

What I don't get is the point of this thread or the OP - everybody knows that every free Western democracy has a progressive income tax system where the rich pay taxes at a higher rate on the upper levels of their incomes, and every western democracy has some form of social safety net, so the poor don't riot and revolt, and kill everybody.

So what?

 

[TheVictors]

Why the contingency, Bro? You should want to give back for the sake of giving back. From each, to each, no? Equality and justice. You've got to do more and for the right reasons.

Because, bro, like Sbee I am already subsidizing lazy buckeyes like you and paying more these days to offset the hole we're ...I'm no dummy, I want the write-off if I'm going to pay for your wings.

No contingency, just business.

Bro.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I haven't had wings in a while.

 

[TheVictors]

I was in Santa Monica/South Bay this week ...but was under the weather, hanging tight at the hotel. Next time I'm out your way we'll have to hit Soup's!

 

[tinselwolverine]

I was in Santa Monica/South Bay this week ...but was under the weather, hanging tight at the hotel. Next time I'm out your way we'll have to hit Soup's!

That sounds tits!!!

 

[Gulo Blue]

The thing to worry about is the impact of a proposed one-time tax. The uncertainty while arguing over the thing and then the persistent idea that they'd do it a again would be bad for business. Worrying about our taxes being too progressive right now is silly. If how progressive the tax rates are is the thermostadt, how concentrated wealth distribution is is the temperature. Saying you can only turn the thermostadt in one direction all the time is dumb.

Wealth inequality is a historic high point. That means we can tolerate a bit more progressiveness.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wealth inequality is a historic high point. That means we can tolerate a bit more progressiveness.

Freakin' under Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate in the United States was up to 90%.

During the Kennedy Administration it went down to 70%; it stayed at that level into the second year of the Reagan presidency, when it went down to 50% and stayed at that level for the next five years, then it went down to 38% and then 28% the final year.

GHWB raised it up a little, and then under Clinton it went up to the 39% where it is now.

So the top marginal rate is comparatively quite low.

 

[Michchamp]

Freakin' under Eisenhower the top marginal tax rate in the United States was up to 90%.

During the Kennedy Administration it went down to 70%; it stayed at that level into the second year of the Reagan presidency, when it went down to 50% and stayed at that level for the next five years, then it went down to 38% and then 28% the final year.

GHWB raised it up a little, and then under Clinton it went up to the 39% where it is now.

So the top marginal rate is comparatively quite low.

this bears repeating. much repeating.

well... not just repeating.

actually this should be shouted in the face of anyone arguing against raising taxes, or for cutting taxes further.

Then they should be punched in the face, knocked unconscious, tied up in a burlap sack and shipped to China.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Then they should be punched in the face, knocked unconscious, tied up in a burlap sack and shipped to China.

I would view this as possibly going too far.

 

[Gulo Blue]

this bears repeating. much repeating.

well... not just repeating.

actually this should be shouted in the face of anyone arguing against raising taxes, or for cutting taxes further.

Then they should be punched in the face, knocked unconscious, tied up in a burlap sack and shipped to China.

Repeating with caveats. The effective tax rate was less. I don't think much was taxed at that 90% rate, but I do believe the effective tax rate has dropped significantly. It's just tough finding a good source. Usually if you want things more progressive you ignore all loopholes and just talk about the rates. If you wan't things less progressive, you cook your numbers to make the effective tax look flat over time. Reality is in between.

 

[Gulo Blue]

...and of course, people are going to talk about income tax rates when what they really want is capital gains.

 

[Sbee]

Repeating with caveats. The effective tax rate was less. I don't think much was taxed at that 90% rate, but I do believe the effective tax rate has dropped significantly. It's just tough finding a good source. Usually if you want things more progressive you ignore all loopholes and just talk about the rates. If you wan't things less progressive, you cook your numbers to make the effective tax look flat over time. Reality is in between.

GE paid $0 in taxes, but come on, let's talk about a single mom that gets food stamps and works at wal mart, she might be getting something for free (gasp!)

effective rates are what matter, if you're wealthy and have a pulse you can get your rate down with accountants and lawyers.

 

[Michchamp]

GE paid $0 in taxes, but come on, let's talk about a single mom that gets food stamps and works at wal mart, she might be getting something for free (gasp!)

effective rates are what matter, if you're wealthy and have a pulse you can get your rate down with accountants and lawyers.

even trying to draw comparisons between taxpayers is foolish. Mitt Romney might as well live in a separate country from that single mom, given how the tax code affects him.

that argument that you're entitled to every cent that you "earn" is pernicious... we're not talking about a guy breaking his back picking beans in a field, or building houses. he moves paper around effectively to take advantage of loopholes in the tax code for a living! if that was taxed at a higher rate, he'd be worse off, but everyone else would be better off.