• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unfair upper-income taxation

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The purpose of an economic system is not the myopic accumulation of capital per se. It is (or should be) the well-being of ALL the people within the nation who share the benefits of their hard-earned work. And it should be a national objective to assure - not equal shares of the abundance - but equitable shares. Which is what taxation was intended to do, but amply fails at doing presently.

And what Americans know (but fail to acknowledge) is that the primary purpose of taxation today is to assure that the accent is solely upon accumulation of Wealth (and Net Worth, which is Wealth minus Debt). Meaning, in a pie-chart rendition, this:
Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif


How did it all go so wrong, so wrong, so wrong?


We started to get taxation wrong with JFK who had his Dem-congress reduce taxation (it was LBJ who signed it into law). Reckless Ronnie finished the job. The history of upper-income taxation reduction from above 90% to around 30% is plain enough for anybody to see - Here. Which substantiates the two general movements downward in upper-income taxation since the 1960s.

Note in the above infographic that it was Reckless Ronnie who hacked upper-income taxation down to the ridiculous level at which it finds itself today. That historical fact is evident in the infographic linked above. (When a Milt Romney can pay 14% on income of $13.6M and brag about it, one knows that something is very, very wrong. See here.)

What do both of those degradations in upper-income taxation mean to us as a nation today? That a very small class of plutocrats are very privileged in their taxation and spend-like-crazy to assure that Congress does not change the situation!

Zucman and Saez (UCal, Economics) show well enough the awful consequences of unfair taxation here:
20141108_FNC156.png



This above characterizes the world we live in today. Notably, the top 0.1% of the population obtain the same amount of Wealth generated by the other 90% of us.

And people may think that is fair and honest? When its an income-taxation rip-off that was planned and executed by the Replicants. You THINK you are fooling somebody?

Not anybody with the factual evidence, they're not foole for even one nanosecond ...

NB: There is a reason why 14% of the American population are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold (of $23K income per family). It is because not enough is being done to prevent them from "falling through the cracks". Meaning having the educational perquisites that would permit them a better job. Which Bernie had suggested and Hillary offered were she elected PotUS. But, no, the election was manipulated to make Donald Dork the winner!
 
Last edited:
JFK's proposed tax cut was warranted, as the top rates were much too high; a carryover from WWII marginal rates. the top marginal rate when Reagan cut taxes was 70 percent, which was also way too much. another difference between now and the more equitable wealth distribution of the mid 20th century is that unions have been gutted. the depressing part is that even if we could restore unions, technology could probably render them useless for many jobs, and probably will anyway even without unions. however, the clapping that you hear will be significantly dulled as the idea of guaranteed income begins to gain a foothold.
 
Why punish people for earning more money? It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.

Besides labor should not be taxed at all. We should tax only consumption. After all, consumption is what ruins things, not labor.
 
Taxes are not suppose to be fair. Taxes are there to pay for stuff that society has agreed to do together. It is all about burden, and that is why you have a tax system where the rich should pay relatively more in % than the poor or middle classes.
 
Why punish people for earning more money?~/b` It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.

Besides labor should not be taxed at all. We should tax only consumption. After all, consumption is what ruins things, not labor.


Why is to create a system where those that earn less are rewarded for being "victims". Trying to convince congress critters that a system which gets them re-elected at rate of over 90% needs to be changed is futile. The OP starts by trying to tell us that income tax policy is the problem but that "free" college, rather than tax "reform", is the solution.
 
Taxes are not suppose to be fair. Taxes are there to pay for stuff that society has agreed to do together. It is all about , and that is why you have a tax system where the rich should pay relatively more in % than the poor or middle classes.

Perhaps true of the Danish system. Our system doesn't get us to agree to do anything together. Your country may have been founded on the principle of fairness but ours was founded on the principle of equality. Equality means that the government should treat everyone the same. When someone gains at the expense of others because of government action, it is no longer equal.

The problem with our tax system is that it is supposed to fund overspending. Bring spending under control and taxation becomes much easier to design and enforce.
 
Why is to create a system where those that earn less are rewarded for being "victims". Trying to convince congress critters that a system which gets them re-elected at rate of over 90% needs to be changed is futile. The OP starts by trying to tell us that income tax policy is the problem but that "free" college, rather than tax "reform", is the solution.

The goal should be to encourage everyone to earn more, save for retirement and their own medical needs, do not penalize them for buying food and shelter but tax the hell out of purchasing luxury items. Hence, I favor a high tax on consumption--taxing consumer goods and services, maybe allow exemptions for unprocessed foods, the first X dollars on shelter, major medical and other necessities---and zero taxes on income.

The system we have now punishes success and rewards failure, punishes savings and rewards consumption. When people are better off financially to not work than they are working a low-wage job: high payroll taxes, cost of medical insurance and expenses to get to work versus receiving food stamps, rent vouchers, Medicaid and cash subsidies; you know the system is jacked.
 
The goal should be to encourage everyone to earn more, save for retirement and their own medical needs, do not penalize them for buying food and shelter but tax the hell out of purchasing luxury items. Hence, I favor a high tax on consumption--taxing consumer goods and services, maybe allow exemptions for unprocessed foods, the first X dollars on shelter, major medical and other necessities---and zero taxes on income.

The system we have now punishes success and rewards failure, punishes savings and rewards consumption. When people are better off financially to not work than they are working a low-wage job: high payroll taxes, cost of medical insurance and expenses to get to work versus receiving food stamps, rent vouchers, Medicaid and cash subsidies; you know the system is jacked.

Hmm... what, other than labor, is a service?
 
The purpose of an economic system is not the myopic accumulation of capital per se. It is (or should be) the well-being of ALL the people within the nation who share the benefits of their hard-earned work. And it should be a national objective to assure - not equal shares of the abundance - but equitable shares. Which is what taxation was intended to do, but amply fails at doing presently.

And what Americans know (but fail to acknowledge) is that the primary purpose of taxation today is to assure that the accent is solely upon accumulation of Wealth (and Net Worth, which is Wealth minus Debt). Meaning, in a pie-chart rendition, this:
Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif


How did it all go so wrong, so wrong, so wrong?


We started to get taxation wrong with JFK who had his Dem-congress reduce taxation (it was LBJ who signed it into law). Reckless Ronnie finished the job. The history of upper-income taxation reduction from above 90% to around 30% is plain enough for anybody to see - Here. Which substantiates the two general movements downward in upper-income taxation since the 1960s.

Note in the above infographic that it was Reckless Ronnie who hacked upper-income taxation down to the ridiculous level at which it finds itself today. That historical fact is evident in the infographic linked above. (When a Milt Romney can pay 14% on income of $13.6M and brag about it, one knows that something is very, very wrong. See here.)

What do both of those degradations in upper-income taxation mean to us as a nation today? That a very small class of plutocrats are very privileged in their taxation and spend-like-crazy to assure that Congress does not change the situation!

Zucman and Saez (UCal, Economics) show well enough the awful consequences of unfair taxation here:
20141108_FNC156.png



This above characterizes the world we live in today. Notably, the top 0.1% of the population obtain the same amount of Wealth generated by the other 90% of us.

And people may think that is fair and honest? When its an income-taxation rip-off that was planned and executed by the Replicants. You THINK you are fooling somebody?

Not anybody with the factual evidence, they're not foole for even one nanosecond ...

NB: There is a reason why 14% of the American population are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold (of $23K income per family). It is because not enough is being done to prevent them from "falling through the cracks". Meaning having the educational perquisites that would permit them a better job. Which Bernie had suggested and Hillary offered were she elected PotUS. But, no, the election was manipulated to make Donald Dork the winner!

What is your prescription, then?

Do you want to tax these folks to the point at which they all move elsewhere?

The problem with trying to outsmart people like the 1%'ers who are obviously smarter than those of us who are the 99%-ers is that we're not as smart as they are.

They will always be smarter and richer than the rest of us. If we chase them away, who is going to pay the part of the tax bill that they are paying right now?

Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts - NYTimes.com
 
What is your prescription, then? Do you want to tax these folks to the point at which they all move elsewhere?

Let's reinstitute "real" taxation at 92% (as it was before 1963) and see how many fat-cats jump ship with their billions. Shall we?

Think they'll fly-off to tax-havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands? Good riddance! The Replicant Party will sink without their money. (So, of course, that won't happen. Even with higher tax-rates, they will live very comfortably in the US. It's in Estate Taxation that the government gains back real fortunes, obtained due to the lack of real-taxation in the past!

Then we'll use the money gained from Enhanced Estate Tax-Revenue for some badly needed national services, two of which come to mind: National Healthcare Insurance and Free Tertiary Education ... !

The problem with trying to outsmart people like the 1%'ers who are obviously smarter than those of us who are the 99%-ers is that we're not as smart as they are.

They will always be smarter and richer than the rest of us. If we chase them away, who is going to pay the part of the tax bill that they are paying right now?

Since when did smarts have anything to do with taxation? It's a game, is it?

The purpose of taxation is to level the playing field. As it stands now, the playing field looks like the two graphics I put in the initiating comment on this forum.

Anybody who does not recognize the lack of fairness needs his head examined ...


We have already some of the lowest tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) comparable internationally:
3.1.4-figure1.png


Just how much more do you want to give the FatCats on a free-ride from real taxation ... ?
 
The goal should be to encourage everyone to earn more, save for retirement and their own medical needs, do not penalize them for buying food and shelter but tax the hell out of purchasing luxury items. Hence, I favor a high tax on consumption--taxing consumer goods and services, maybe allow exemptions for unprocessed foods, the first X dollars on shelter, major medical and other necessities---and zero taxes on income.

The system we have now punishes success and rewards failure, punishes savings and rewards consumption. When people are better off financially to not work than they are working a low-wage job: high payroll taxes, cost of medical insurance and expenses to get to work versus receiving food stamps, rent vouchers, Medicaid and cash subsidies; you know the system is jacked.

I guess I would support a federal sales tax as long as it replaced income tax instead of adding to it.
 
Perhaps true of the Danish system. Our system doesn't get us to agree to do anything together. Your country may have been founded on the principle of fairness but ours was founded on the principle of equality. Equality means that the government should treat everyone the same. When someone gains at the expense of others because of government action, it is no longer equal.

LOL no it was not. The US was in no way founded on the principle of equality... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was founded by white slave owning landowners, where everyone else were 2nd class citizens and in no way equal. What you are pushing is a right wing bull**** theory that does not work in the real world.. much like the communist ideal does not work either. Taxes are not suppose to be fair, or equal. And of course even US society has agreed on certain things we do best together.. military, police, law/justice and so on.. and that requires funding.

The problem with our tax system is that it is supposed to fund overspending. Bring spending under control and taxation becomes much easier to design and enforce.

The problem with your tax system is that you dont collect enough taxes for you spending and that the burden is on the poor and lower middle classes and not so much on the upper classes.
 
LOL no it was not. The US was in no way founded on the principle of equality... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was founded by white slave owning landowners, where everyone else were 2nd class citizens and in no way equal. What you are pushing is a right wing bull**** theory that does not work in the real world.. much like the communist ideal does not work either. Taxes are not suppose to be fair, or equal. And of course even US society has agreed on certain things we do best together.. military, police, law/justice and so on.. and that requires funding.



The problem with your tax system is that you dont collect enough taxes for you spending and that the burden is on the poor and lower middle classes and not so much on the upper classes.

So we disagree.
 
Why punish people for earning more money? It's a dumb system. With progressive income tax, we are literally building in systemic disincentives to earn more.

Besides labor should not be taxed at all. We should tax only consumption. After all, consumption is what ruins things, not labor.
Because people do not exist in a vacuum. When CEO's earn much more money, relative to their workers, than they used to that means workers end up earning less because the pot of money being distributed is the same. Taxation isn't a punishment for success. In many cases it is a punishment for greed. Taxes subsidize workers paid at poverty wages, and go to thing like roads and fire departments that companies depend on. If people at the top of these companies earned a little less, and their workers earned a little more, I think that would be a good thing.
 
Let's reinstitute "real" taxation at 92% (as it was before 1963) and see how many fat-cats jump ship with their billions. Shall we?

Think they'll fly-off to tax-havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands? Good riddance! The Replicant Party will sink without their money. (So, of course, that won't happen. Even with higher tax-rates, they will live very comfortably in the US. It's in Estate Taxation that the government gains back real fortunes, obtained due to the lack of real-taxation in the past!

Then we'll use the money gained from Enhanced Estate Tax-Revenue for some badly needed national services, two of which come to mind: National Healthcare Insurance and Free Tertiary Education ... !



Since when did smarts have anything to do with taxation? It's a game, is it?

The purpose of taxation is to level the playing field. As it stands now, the playing field looks like the two graphics I put in the initiating comment on this forum.

Anybody who does not recognize the lack of fairness needs his head examined ...



We have already some of the lowest tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) comparable internationally:
3.1.4-figure1.png


Just how much more do you want to give the FatCats on a free-ride from real taxation ... ?

envy is a stupid basis for taxation. the top one percent should not pay more than their share of the income. even better, one percent should pay one percent of the taxes. Rich people actually use less government services than those who are not paying their share
 
Taxes are not suppose to be fair. Taxes are there to pay for stuff that society has agreed to do together. It is all about burden, and that is why you have a tax system where the rich should pay relatively more in % than the poor or middle classes.

That is how our tax system works here in the US. The rich pay the absolute lion's share of the tax burden, the poor pay nothing, and the middle class gets hammered. In Europe, the middle class and poor get absolutely hammered, and the rich get off cheap.
 
Let's reinstitute "real" taxation at 92% (as it was before 1963) and see how many fat-cats jump ship with their billions. Shall we?

Think they'll fly-off to tax-havens like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands? Good riddance! The Replicant Party will sink without their money. (So, of course, that won't happen. Even with higher tax-rates, they will live very comfortably in the US. It's in Estate Taxation that the government gains back real fortunes, obtained due to the lack of real-taxation in the past!

Then we'll use the money gained from Enhanced Estate Tax-Revenue for some badly needed national services, two of which come to mind: National Healthcare Insurance and Free Tertiary Education ... !



Since when did smarts have anything to do with taxation? It's a game, is it?

The purpose of taxation is to level the playing field. As it stands now, the playing field looks like the two graphics I put in the initiating comment on this forum.

Anybody who does not recognize the lack of fairness needs his head examined ...



We have already some of the lowest tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) comparable internationally:
3.1.4-figure1.png


Just how much more do you want to give the FatCats on a free-ride from real taxation ... ?

Good grief, what a load of nonsense. The top 1% in this country pay 40% of the federal tax burden. How much do you want them to pay?

And this whole "93% tax rate was just hunky dory", is propaganda nonsense. Nobody paid that rate. NOBODY. Just for fun, why don't you tell us exactly how this "93% taxation rate" worked.
 
That is how our tax system works here in the US. The rich pay the absolute lion's share of the tax burden, the poor pay nothing, and the middle class gets hammered. In Europe, the middle class and poor get absolutely hammered, and the rich get off cheap.

False... the rich does not pay a lions share of the burden.. the middle class does. Do you even understand what burden means? Of course the rich pay most of the actual dollars in taxes, but guess what.. they also earn the most! The real burden of having the US around, is on the poor and middle classes.

The problem with the American tax system, is it is Greece 2.0. So full of holes and people who dont want to pay taxes. That means massive deficits and rising debt... Greece 2.0. Unless a society change is done, and people realize, that if they want to live in the US, then the US needs to have funding. Having loopholes and tax breaks that makes the effective tax rate far far far lower than the on paper one.. is just mind boggling dumb.

By all means cut costs, but you need to increase revenue as well. Kill loopholes, and tax breaks for those that can actually afford it. Instead, trickle down idiot economics rules the day, and people actually believe that give Paris Hilton extra millions will increase the economy... no it wont. Giving Mr Jones down the street extra funds will, because there are far more Mr Jones than Paris Hiltons.

Btw, I am a big proponent that even the poor should pay taxes.. low as hell, but never the less. It means they feel invested in society instead of outcasts. As a kid, I worked and I had to go through filing taxes like everyone else. Sure 99% of my income was tax free in the end, but the process had to be done and I did pay a little tax into a retirement fund. I was 15-17. Everyone in Denmark has to do that... of course our taxes are automatically calculated and all you have to do is sign off on them or send in changes if needed. Great system btw and very effective.
 
And this whole "93% tax rate was just hunky dory", is propaganda nonsense. Nobody paid that rate. NOBODY. Just for fun, why don't you tell us exactly how this "93% taxation rate" worked.

But that was the LAW.

Just because "nobody was paying the full rate" means only that the application of the law was inappropriately and insufficiently strict. And, in a country like the US, which spends oodles of muney on elections, we can understand why some people may have been "favored" in the analysis of their tax-declarations.

Once again, I point to Romneys boasting regarding his own run-in with the authorities (under a Replicant Administration) regarding taxation, and was let off very lightly indeed ...

Amassing money is likely playing a sport. It gives people "points" in the hierarchy of successful businessmen and women. They get their photos on the front page of BusinessWeek and Fortune magazines. But who the hell should care how much money people aggregate - when the problem is that the ONLY REASON THEY DID SO WAS BY CONTRAVENING A CAP AT 92% by administrations that allowed them to do so.

People like you simply do not see the inequity and unfairness of the taxation system, because you do not want to do so ...
 
envy is a stupid basis for taxation. the top one percent should not pay more than their share of the income. even better, one percent should pay one percent of the taxes. Rich people actually use less government services than those who are not paying their share

Look, that is exactly the point of this discussion. What is their fair share?

The 92% specified by law (pre-LBJ) or what they actually paid, which was nowhere near that amount. Nothing has changed in the finagling except the law. Whereas before the law stipulated a rate of 92%, now it is closer to 30% - and yet people like Romney still get "special attention".

I posted the UCal research infographic above, and yet the blindness of people like you persist. That very strong and very unfair accumulation of Taxed Income that has become Wealth and there is an underlying reason for it. And that reason must be "UNFAIR AND EXPLOITIVE RATES OF TAXATION PAID"!

And Donald Dork wants to lower taxes yet again?!? Duhhhhhhhhhhh ...
 
envy is a stupid basis for taxation. the top one percent should not pay more than their share of the income. even better, one percent should pay one percent of the taxes. Rich people actually use less government services than those who are not paying their share

The top 1% own 40% of the wealth but you want them to just pay 1% of the tax!!

Aside from your position being morally repugnant, it would be economic suicide. You want mass poverty in your country just so you can be even richer? Absolutely disgusting.
 
Look, that is exactly the point of this discussion. What is their fair share?

The 92% specified by law (pre-LBJ) or what they actually paid, which was nowhere near that amount. Nothing has changed in the finagling except the law. Whereas before the law stipulated a rate of 92%, now it is closer to 30% - and yet people like Romney still get "special attention".

I posted the UCal research infographic above, and yet the blindness of people like you persist. That very strong and very unfair accumulation of Taxed Income that has become Wealth and there is an underlying reason for it. And that reason must be "UNFAIR AND EXPLOITIVE RATES OF TAXATION PAID"!

And Donald Dork wants to lower taxes yet again?!? Duhhhhhhhhhhh ...

Donald Dork?
Yawn. Most of us in the top one percent are not billionaires and we pay too much. you don't live in the USA so why are you so worried about the tax structure?
 
The top 1% own 40% of the wealth but you want them to just pay 1% of the tax!!

Aside from your position being morally repugnant, it would be economic suicide. You want mass poverty in your country just so you can be even richer? Absolutely disgusting.

your position is based on a parasitic belief it appears. we make failure too easy in this country and too many people are addicted to government. btw the income tax is not a wealth tax, a wealth tax is disgusting
 
Back
Top Bottom