59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

[LV426]

Every quarter for 8 years of obama, the same headline over and over: :"IRS collects record amount of tax revenue

With the exception of tax cut years and recessions, the government always collects more revenue than the year before because the economy grows and because of inflation.

You are anti-social and rather than self-isolating, you want others to adhere to your shitty belief system.

Just kill yourself if that's the case. That way, you won't have to pay any taxes and you won't have to participate in society.

 

[LV426]

and it's been the same for the past 2 years under Trump! WITH the tax cuts!!

Wrong.

The Russia Tax Cut didn't take effect until 2018, and revenue for 2018 hasn't been determined yet.

In fact, the tax policy center estimates revenue growth from 2017-2018 will be less than 1%.

By contrast, when the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich expired at the end of 2012, 2013 revenue grew 13%.

Fuck the government, let THEM struggle to pay THEIR bills!

We are the government, jackass, and the government is us.

Just because you don't want to participate in society doesn't mean you can avoid it.

If you are that anti-social, fucking kill yourself.

 

[Callinectes]

Then why did you respond, asking about who was polled?

FFS, you could just have not responded at all, but you chose to anyway.

Why?

I'm sorry, I forgot most things zip over your head like the space shuttle returning to earth. I was merely pointing out that after 2016, I have found that most political polling must be taken with a grain of salt, and I don't want to wade through the quagmire to find anything worth using in my decision making process. My gut has a much better track record. Oh, but I'm sure your leftard friends on here find your intellect to be superlative, just ask them to take a poll

 

[evince]

Poll: A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, which was conducted Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70 percent, found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea.

...

45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters who were contacted backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin while Democratic ones favored it, 71 percent to 29 percent.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ricans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70

the internets make it too easy for voters to get the facts republicans have lied about for decades

 

[LV426]

I was merely pointing out that after 2016, I have found that most political polling must be taken with a grain of salt

Why is that?

The 2016 polls were accurate...they predicted a Clinton margin of about 3% and that's what she got.

The polls weren't polls of the electoral college, and you know that.

So why are you engaging in sophistry? Simple; because you don't know any other way to act.

 

[LV426]

I don't want to wade through the quagmire to find anything worth using in my decision making process.

None of this explains why you responded to my post with that question if your intent was to never accept anything.

So you're just confirming for me and everyone following this thread that you are actively choosing to engage in bad faith.

Which means all the shit you're saying about yourself is probably lying bullshit too.

My gut has a much better track record.

Bullshit.

Oh, but I'm sure your leftard friends on here find your intellect to be superlative, just ask them to take a poll

The polls accurately predicted Clinton would win by about 3% in 2016.

None of the polls were of the Electoral Vote, and you know that.

So what you're doing is pretending that because the polls accurately predicted Hillary would win by a margin of 3%, despite Trump winning the Electoral College, that the polls are meaningless. And you make that argument dishonestly because at no point was the Electoral College even polled.

So what is happening now is that you're trying to use a fake excuse so you don't have to accept the conclusions of a poll that shatter the glass menagerie you've constructed for yourself.

What a fucking fraud.

Who buys this shit anymore???? Who is so fucking stupid that they think what you write makes sense????? Who believes the bullshit lies you tell about yourself to make people think you're more credible than you actually are??? Certainly not the American people, after handing you the widest midterm margin loss ever.

 

[evince]

once we prevent the republican party from cheating in elections


the world will be amazed at how liberal America actually is and has been for a long time

Its why the republican party and the wealthy assholes ( yes their are good wealthy people , they just dont vote or give money to the republican party) decided to cheat in the first place

 

[Flash]

Well, the bad news for you is that since 1980, the top 1% has seen all the income gains.

So if everyone's income rose at the same rate, you'd have a point.

But they didn't, so you don't.

Why is it bad news for me? Their share of total income has increased, their share of total federal income taxes have increased, and their average income tax rate paid has increased--just like a progressive tax system is supposed to work.

While the income share of the top 1% has increased, they have always been in the top marginal tax rate. So the top 1% (and the top 20%) have a larger share of the income and total taxes, they are paying a higher rate on a larger amount of income even with a lower marginal tax rate.

So, that should make you happy since the wealthy are paying more taxes at a higher rate despite a lower top marginal rate.

 

[LV426]

Why is it bad news for me?

Because your argument lacks detail. When provided with the detail, your argument crumbles and collapses.

Their share of total income has increased, their share of total federal income taxes have increased, and their average income tax rate paid has increased--just like a progressive tax system is supposed to work

It's not enough.

While the income share of the top 1% has increased, they have always been in the top marginal tax rate.

Great! So why is it not acceptable to raise their rates? They've enjoyed all the income gains. So they should pay more in taxes. It's that simple.

So the top 1% (and the top 20%) have a larger share of the income and total taxes, they are paying a higher rate on a larger amount of income even with a lower marginal tax rate.

They're not paying a higher rate.

Their marginal tax rate is almost half of what it was before.

So back when the crux of your argument was that rev-GDP isn't affected by increased marginal rates, and then when it was shown that slight changes to rev-GDP result in massive changes to gross revenues collected you shifted your argument away from that metric, that higher marginal rates result in incrementally higher rev-GDP ratios, and those result in higher gross revenues collected. 1% change in rev-GDP is the equivalent of $200B of revenue.

$200B of revenue would fund free public colleges for 2 1/2 years.

So every single argument you are making is just going to serve my argument that marginal rates need to increase so that we can do things like M4A, Green New Deal, and free colleges.

 

[LV426]

So, that should make you happy since the wealthy are paying more taxes at a higher rate despite a lower top marginal rate.

They're not paying a higher rate. Why do you keep saying this when it's not true!?

The marginal rate in 1980 was 70% on the top bracket.

It's 39.6% today.

Even nominal changes to rev-GDP and effective tax rates for individuals has YUGE changes to gross revenues collected.

It's that second part you leave out of your arguments because you don't want to admit that slight adjustments to the metrics you introduced to the debate result in massive changes to gross revenues collected, and thus spent on programs.

You engage in sophistry simply because you are incapable of acting any other way.

 

[Flash]

Name one.

Just one.

Name one deduction from 1946-1980 that resulted in any rich person avoiding paying the top rate.

Go ahead.

I dare you.

I never said those deductions resulted in anyone paying less than the top rate (although I'm sure there were some), but, with more deductions they pay the top rate on less income.

One deduction I remember without research was the interest on consumer loans, credit cards, etc.

In the 1980s revenue increased from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Much of that increased revenue came from 1982 and 1984 tax increases that did not increase rates but:

"largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes."

https://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

That is what I mean that the entire tax structure, not just tax rates, affect revenues.

The 2018 tax cut also eliminates deductions such as the individual exemption, a cap on state-local income tax deductions, a cap on home mortgage interest deductions, tax preparation, investment fees, professional dues, moving expenses, alimony deductions, etc.

 

[LV426]

I never said those deductions resulted in anyone paying less than the top rate (although I'm sure there were some), but, with more deductions they pay the top rate on less incom

Hold on a second and back the fuck up.


You all have been saying in virtually every post that it's pointless to raise the top rate because of all the deductions that existed -before 1980- in the tax code that prevented anyone from paying that top rate.

Now, when asked for one example, you come up fucking short.

So since you bullshitted me on that, what else are you bullshitting?

 

[LV426]

One deduction I remember without research was the interest on consumer loans, credit cards, etc.

Well your recollection is really fucking shaky pal, and also, aren't those deductions still in effect?

So you said before that prior to 1980 no one paid the top tax rate because of "deductions".

You can't say what deductions, you just know it to be true because...because...it confirms your bias.

That's it. That's the reason.

So you're telling me that rich people deducted the interest on their consumer loans (? why would rich people need consumer loans??) and credit cards (same question) and that was what prevented anyone from paying the top 70% rate?

Your claim was that no one paid the top rate because of ambiguous "deductions" that you kinda, maybe, sorta recall, but can't say for sure, and definitely can't say were used to avoid paying the top rate.

I'm holding you to that claim.

 

[LV426]

In the 1980s revenue increased from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Much of that increased revenue came from 1982 and 1984 tax increases that did not increase rates but

So my plan was to undo the last 40 years of fiscal policy.

That would include this shit.

But that has nothing to do with the deductions and shit you claimed were in place before then that prevented people from paying the top rate.

So you thought you could fake your way through this debate by shifting the goalposts again.

What is it with you and that habit? Why do you do that? Why not just admit you are full of shit?

I don't get it. I don't get why you are trying to avoid accountability for acting in bad faith. Is it really all about your ego?

Get a fucking grip.

 

[LV426]

That is what I mean that the entire tax structure, not just tax rates, affect revenues.

OK, and this means we can't raise the top rate to 70% or establish a 70% bracket at $10M because...?

 

[LV426]

The 2018 tax cut also eliminates deductions such as the individual exemption, a cap on state-local income tax deductions, a cap on home mortgage interest deductions, tax preparation, investment fees, professional dues, moving expenses, alimony deductions, etc.

I want to undo the last 40 years of Conservatism.

So all of it, from the Russia Tax Cut, to the Bush Tax Cuts, to the Reagan monkeying around with the tax code...all of it would be erased. The last 40 years of Conservative tax policy will be erased.

That's what we're talking about.

All you're doing is helping me make the case that we should undo all of what your kind as done the last 40 years.

 

[Flash]

They're not paying a higher rate. Why do you keep saying this when it's not true!?

The marginal rate in 1980 was 70% on the top bracket.

It's 39.6% today.

Your memory is so short. I gave that data in the original post you responded to. You are still confusing marginal tax rate and effective tax rate.

In 1981 the top tax rate was 70% but the average tax rate paid by the top 1% was only 21.9%. The marginal tax rate was higher but they only paid an effective tax rate of 21.9%. You don't pay 70% on your entire income and more deductions mean paying tax on less income.

By 2014 (last year for the data) the marginal rate was 39.6% but the top 1% paid an average effective tax rate of 24%. So, yes, they did pay a lower rate. What they actually paid is more important the the top rate.

21.9% is lower than 24%.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...all-households

 

[LV426]

Your memory is so short. I gave that data in the original post you responded to. You are still confusing marginal tax rate and effective tax rate.

No, no, no.

YOU keep jumping between those two rates, and then you strategically just refer to ambiguous "rates" in your posts so you can wiggle within the goalposts later on, just as you're doing here.

Total sophistry.

 

[LV426]

In 1981 the top tax rate was 70% but the average tax rate paid by the top 1% was only 21.9%.

OK, and income distribution in 1981 is not the same as it was in 2014, is it? That incomes for the top 1% have grown at a remarkable rate, while everyone else's stayed flat.

So of course their effective rate will be higher in 2014 than 1981 because they are making more money in 2014 than in 1981, thus, more of it is taxed.

This is what I mean when I say you act in bad faith.

 

[LV426]

21.9% is lower than 24%

You're a sophist and here's why:

Since 1981, income gains for the top 1% have been skyrocketing while incomes for everyone else has stayed flat or declined.

So because of that, the amount of income the 1% made in 2014 is way more than the amount of income they made in 1981, both in terms of gross amounts and in share of income.

And because the amount is more, they pay more in taxes on it (because there's more of it to be taxed).

So that's why the effective rate inched upwards; because the pool of income being taxed is significantly larger than the income taxed in 1981...there's just more of it because the wealthy have seen all the income gains.

It would be weird if the effective rate was less than it was in 1981.

So all you've done here is show that the wealthy have been taking a disproportionate share of the income gains, and you're expressing that in the effective tax rate they paid.

Wow. Way to self-own.

This is what happens when someone with no capacity for critical thinking tries to wade into a debate where critical thinking is a necessity.