Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738 LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 560

Thread: What Taxing the Rich Could Yield

  1. #541 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,383
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 1,011 Times in 842 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 43 Times in 43 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    You say rev-GDP doesn't increase after a tax increase, then you say it does increase but a nominal amount, but then you ignore that a nominal change to that metric results in a massive change to the revenue metric.
    I never said that. You have a vivid imagination based on what you want to hear.

    We can find years when revenue-GDP increased after a tax increase and years when it increased after a tax cut and years it it increased or decreased with no tax changes.

  2. #542 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We can find years when revenue-GDP increased after a tax increase and years when it increased after a tax cut and years it it increased or decreased with no tax changes.
    What we don't see is that rev-GDP declining after a tax increase.

    Which is my point.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  3. #543 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Realville
    Posts
    30,136
    Thanks
    1,374
    Thanked 5,788 Times in 4,703 Posts
    Groans
    745
    Groaned 2,444 Times in 2,267 Posts

    Default

    So let's do the math. Using Cartoon Kenny's own money these people are WORTH $618 billion dollars. That is NET WORTH. That is not how much income they earn any given year.

    As it stands today, we do not tax wealth. We tax income.

    But, let's say for the same of argument that the leftists greatest wet dream comes true and we pass a law taxing WEALTH as well as INCOME and the federal gobblement confiscates 50% of the $618 billion. That comes to $309 billion dollars.

    and leaves another $309 billion for next year of which you would only be able to tax at $150 billion and then the following year $75 billion and so on and so on and so on.

    Now, what would $309 billion get us? Well, it would fund less than 10% of the federal gobblement for one year and doesn't even come close to the other leftist wet dreams y'all have.

    Bottom line is taxing the rich will never yield what you say it will. Wistful memories of a 70% top marginal rate in 1960 won't change that

  4. #544 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,750
    Thanks
    2,919
    Thanked 3,050 Times in 1,995 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 299 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Hello Nordberg,

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Let's see. Tax rate 35 percent. How much money is collected? Change top rate to 70 percent. Can you explain how that would not increase revenue? When Ike was president, we had a tax rate of over 90 percent. We built our national highway system . Now we can't maintain it. Of course back then corporations did not have so many ways to evade taxes and they had a higher rate. They contributed over 30 percent of revenue collected. Now under 10. Sorry, but the cold hard fact is we have allowed the people on top get away with paying a slive of the tax rate they once paid. Now we have a wealth gap that is worse than the Gilded Age. A terrible wealth gap is a threat to the system. Money=power.
    Spot on.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  5. #545 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,750
    Thanks
    2,919
    Thanked 3,050 Times in 1,995 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 299 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Hello Frank,

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I can understand muni's being tax free. It allows municipalities to float bonds at a reasonable rate.

    But stuff like capital gains...should be considered...well, INCOME...and should be taxed just like any other income.

    Inheritances should be taxed as income.

    And the rates should go WAY up...over 75% on top income.

    Most of the reason given for not doing so...really do not rise above rationalizations in order to favor the rich.

    Just sayin.'
    Totally agree.

    So does AOC.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-12-2019)

  7. #546 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,750
    Thanks
    2,919
    Thanked 3,050 Times in 1,995 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 299 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    "What Taxing the Rich Could Yield:"

    We could balance the budget.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  8. #547 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,892
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 1,686 Times in 1,169 Posts
    Groans
    138
    Groaned 180 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    If you are living a happy life, and not dying of anything, and have everything you already want- you are rich already- you may just not realize it!

  9. #548 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    4,383
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 1,011 Times in 842 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 43 Times in 43 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    "I'm going to prove that raising taxes on the wealthy won't increase revenue, and here's some figures that shows revenue increases after taxes are raised"
    Revenues increase almost every year--after tax increases, after tax cuts, when there are no tax changes.

  10. #549 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Revenues increase almost every year--after tax increases, after tax cuts, when there are no tax changes.
    Right, but raising taxes results in more revenue than cutting them. Never once has revenue declined after a tax increase, but there are several instances -in the federal budget and in state budgets like Kansas- that show revenue declining after a tax cut. The clearest example are the years 2001-2004, when revenue levels (i.e. gross revenue collected) were below what they were in 2000.

    Your insistence was that changes to the marginal rate have little effect on a singular metric (rev-GDP), but you gloss over that small effects on that particular metric have massive effects on gross revenue collected.

    You argued that wasn't the case, then posted data showing that it was.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  11. #550 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    So let's do the math. Using Cartoon Kenny's own money these people are WORTH $618 billion dollars. That is NET WORTH. That is not how much income they earn any given year.
    That's not their worth then, that's just their income.

    So right away, you start off a post being inaccurate, so that will have a downstream effect on everything else you write.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  12. #551 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    But, let's say for the same of argument that the leftists greatest wet dream comes true and we pass a law taxing WEALTH as well as INCOME and the federal gobblement confiscates 50% of the $618 billion. That comes to $309 billion dollars
    $309B would be a little more than 1/3 of the current federal deficit.

    Back before the Russia tax cuts, $309B would be about 56% of the federal deficit.

    So your Russia Tax Cut exploded the deficit.

    I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives stapled teabags to their faces because they were so concerned about the deficits and debt.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  13. #552 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    and leaves another $309 billion for next year of which you would only be able to tax at $150 billion and then the following year $75 billion and so on and so on and so on.
    No one is proposing taxing wealth, just taxing income.

    We should tax wealth, though.

    Adam Smith opposed generational wealth being passed down.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  14. #553 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    7,707
    Thanks
    1,134
    Thanked 4,138 Times in 2,630 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 430 Times in 403 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Republican Dwight Eisenhower built a interstate highway network, the envy of the world at the time, by taxing the wealthy at a reasonable and sustainable rate. American infrastructure was a high priority

    then along came assholes like Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and now traitor Trump to convince the great unwashed that rich people need even more money.......and even as they fall into economic ruin

    never underestimate the power of mass brainwashing

  15. #554 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    Now, what would $309 billion get us? Well, it would fund less than 10% of the federal gobblement for one year and doesn't even come close to the other leftist wet dreams y'all have.
    So ILA uses a lot of sophistry and false arguments here, and does so in a sloppy way hoping that people will not point out just how sloppy it is.

    1. No liberal has called for a "wealth tax", so right away you are working from a poor assumption you made because your judgment is terrible.

    2. By falsely framing the argument as such, you can avoid what Democrats are actually talking about, which is raising the rate on income over $10M to 70%. That would establish a brand new tax bracket. Also, we had a rate of 70% or higher from 1946-1981, when the United States had arguably its most prolonged economic expansion and period of prosperity with no massive economic collapses, manageable deficits, and enough social spending to reduce the poverty rate from 23% in 1960 down as low as 11% by the late 70's.

    3. Conservatives know all this, and are choosing a path of obfuscation and lies by omission because it's more important for them to preserve their egos than ever admit they're not as smart, informed, or savvy as they want people to think.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

  16. #555 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    12,486
    Thanks
    1,966
    Thanked 3,145 Times in 2,378 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 288 Times in 273 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
    Bottom line is taxing the rich will never yield what you say it will. Wistful memories of a 70% top marginal rate in 1960 won't change that
    Nonsense.

    We soaked the rich from 1946-1981 and in that time we built the middle class, built the interstate highway system, established Medicare, reduced the poverty rate from 23% in 1960 down to 11% by the late 70's, and we put a man on the moon.

    Soaking the rich is just good economics.
    Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you.

Similar Threads

  1. I'll Not Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 06-29-2013, 11:21 AM
  2. GM Crops Do Not Increase Yield
    By Cancel 2016.11 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 08:04 AM
  3. Taxing the Rich
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2011, 06:42 PM
  4. Instead of more Taxing 'The Rich'....
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:09 AM
  5. Taxing the 'Not-So-Rich' Rich
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 06-15-2008, 07:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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