UK example of why high tax rates on the rich don't work

[Danzig]

and then there's boehner ( )


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...?lite=obinsite


Anyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.

House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.

[dellinger63]

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

We have become so reliant on the Federal government for everything from viagra to abortions, common sense no longer exists.

Stop the spending (leaks) first, then start bailing out. Bailing a boat without first fixing the leaks does not work and neither does taxing now and cutting later. To the cliff we go! Sickening how spoiled, needy and weak we've become. Our poor our rich when compared to the rest of the world.

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the top 1%, as well as many of the rest of us, pay less in taxes now than ever. funny, it's a 'fair' share, but it's lower than it's been at any time in the last century for them.
dell, i'm sure they appreciate your concern for them.

But if you don't make it LOWER yet then they will not create jobs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

But if you don't make it LOWER yet then they will not create jobs.

see, thing is, when the cuts went thru they were supposed to be temporary. it's a matter of putting them back where they were. will their taxes go back up? yep. shouldn't have been cut back a few years ago. it was absurd, and didn't create the jobs they said it would. it was a failure. end the bush 'temp' cuts!!!

[GenuineRisk]

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

to illustrate:

2012 tax rates for a head of household:

• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $12,400, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $12,400 to $47,350, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $47,350 to $122,300, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $122,300 to $198,050, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $198,050 to $388,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.

assuming that no changes are made a mythical taxpayer with $300,000 in taxable income pays $78,271.

apply the prior top rate of 39.6% to the amount over $250,000 and that jumps to a sky high $81,571. The extra $3300 paid amounts to increasing their effective tax rate from 26.09% to 27.19%.

a whopping 1.1% increase.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The top 1% pay 30% of the income tax.

I'd say they're doing more than their fair share.

Except that the top 1 percent own 42 percent of the nation's wealth, so in fact, no, they aren't doing their fair share; they're living off the backs of the rest of us. There's nothing like being rich to make a person expect free stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-one-percent/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that the top 1 percent own 42 percent of the nation's wealth, so in fact, no, they aren't doing their fair share; they're living off the backs of the rest of us. There's nothing like being rich to make a person expect free stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-one-percent/

so they should pay 42% of the taxes, instead of 30! excellent point.

[joeydb]

If you charge enough in taxes for any group, they will use measures to decrease the tax collected: moving, not increasing their businesses, or "Going Galt" entirely.

You cannot collect what people decide not to earn in the first place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If you charge enough in taxes for any group, they will use measures to decrease the tax collected: moving, not increasing their businesses, or "Going Galt" entirely.

You cannot collect what people decide not to earn in the first place.

they do that either way. it's bs. and it's amazing the amount of growth we experienced in past eras, when the taxes were higher.

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2..._up_a_lot.html

on cap gain tax increases.


and note this excerpt:

A couple of data points: First, in 2010, 93 percent of the income that was added to our economy accrued to the top 1 percent of families. Second, corporate earnings as a percentage of GDP are at an all-time high—totaling 1.75 trillion in the third quarter of this year, while wages as a percentage of GDP are at an all-time low—just about 43 percent of GDP.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If you charge enough in taxes for any group, they will use measures to decrease the tax collected: moving, not increasing their businesses, or "Going Galt" entirely.

You cannot collect what people decide not to earn in the first place.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

I'll show you, I won't earn any money so you won't get any taxes from me.
Profound logic

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

probably not.
but it's one of the current go to phrases. might as well use it.