• 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!

What purpose did the tax cut for the wealthiest serve?

The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%


Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
 
I might mention that the tax cuts from Reagan provided the capital for foreign investment, and money for the increased amount of lobbying in Congress to gain free trade. The plan to seek cheap labor markets was formed as far back as 1965. Had laws not been changed to allow cheap labor access to American markets ... supply side economics could have benefited America. When all the investment trickled to Mexico and China ... Reagans and Bushes tax cuts bit us in the ass.
 
You are lying

you confuse marginal rates with share of the tax burden

The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%


Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.



Insult noted.

"Over the last 40 years, the U.S. federal tax system has undergone three
striking changes, each of which seems to move the federal tax system in
the direction of less progressivity. First, there has been a dramatic
decline in top marginal individual income tax rates.
In the early 1960s, the statutory
individual income tax rate applied to the marginal dollar of the highest incomes
was 91 percent. This marginal tax rate on the highest incomes declined to
28 percent by 1988, increased significantly to 39.6 percent in 1993, and fell to
35 percent as of 2003. Second, corporate income taxes as a fraction of gross
domestic product have fallen by half
, from around 3.5– 4.0 percent of GDP in the
early 1960s to less than 2 percent of GDP in the early 2000s (for example,
Auerbach, 2006). Meanwhile, corporate profits as a share of GDP have not declined
over the period, suggesting that capital owners—who are disproportionately of
above-average incomes— earn relatively more net of taxes today than in the 1960s.
Third, there has been a substantial increase in payroll tax rates financing Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare
. The combined employee– employer
payroll tax rate on labor income has increased from 6 percent in the early 1960s to
over 15 percent in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, the Social Security payroll tax
applies only up to a cap— equal to $90,000 of annual earnings in 2005—and is
therefore a relatively smaller tax burden as incomes rise above the cap."
Powered by Google Docs


"Since 1992, the average federal income tax actually paid by the wealthiest 400 households in the country has fallen from 26 percent to 17 percent."
For Super Rich, Taxes Keep Falling - ABC News

"the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True."
PolitiFact | Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others
 
You still labor under the delusion that paying less of your income in taxes means the system is less progressive. where you fail is that everyone else is paying lower federal income taxes as well.

the fact is, and none of your posts even attempt to dispute this, is that the rich pay a HIGHER SHARE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN NOW than they have had over the last several decades
 
You still labor under the delusion that paying less of your income in taxes means the system is less progressive. where you fail is that everyone else is paying lower federal income taxes as well.

the fact is, and none of your posts even attempt to dispute this, is that the rich pay a HIGHER SHARE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN NOW than they have had over the last several decades

And you fail to understand that this is because WAGES FOR WORKERS ARE NOT GROWING BUT STAGNANT... and...

Earnings for the top tier have increased 400-1000% over the last several decades. Therefore, if you want to increase the tax burden of the bottom 95%, increasing their wages at least in keeping with cost of living would accomplish this. If those that control the finances want to keep all the money for themselves... they can have the tax burden too...
 
And you fail to understand that this is because WAGES FOR WORKERS ARE NOT GROWING BUT STAGNANT... and...

Earnings for the top tier have increased 400-1000% over the last several decades. Therefore, if you want to increase the tax burden of the bottom 95%, increasing their wages at least in keeping with cost of living would accomplish this. If those that control the finances want to keep all the money for themselves... they can have the tax burden too...

I see red herrings swimming. That has no relevance to me demonstrating that a few of your fellow travelers have lied when they claim that the tax system is less progressive

How does that establish anything. You are talking about the very top one hundredth of the top bracket again.
 
You still labor under the delusion that paying less of your income in taxes means the system is less progressive. where you fail is that everyone else is paying lower federal income taxes as well.

Wrong, as documented above, the very rich are paying a smaller percentage of their increased income in taxes, while the middle class are paying a higher percentage of their reduced income in taxes.

the fact is, and none of your posts even attempt to dispute this, is that the rich pay a HIGHER SHARE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN NOW than they have had over the last several decades

No, they don't. As documented above, they are paying a smaller percentage of their income compared to GDP and their income than they did when our tax system was more progressive.
 
Last edited:
I think the US lost 6 or 7 million middle class taxpayers since 2000 when unemployment was around 4%.
 
Wrong, as documented above, the very rich are paying a smaller percentage of their increased income in taxes, while he middle class are paying a higher percentage of their reduced income in taxes.



No, they don't. As documented above, they are paying a smaller percentage of their income compared to GDP and their income than they did when our tax system was more progressive.

You continually are confused about the percentage of one's income they pay versus their share of the income tax. a more progressive system means the top payers pay more of the total tax burden which is what has happened

I can only conclude that you are intentionally ignoring the truth because you cannot admit you have made such a massive error
 
You continually are confused about the percentage of one's income they pay versus their share of the income tax. a more progressive system means the top payers pay more of the total tax burden which is what has happened

I can only conclude that you are intentionally ignoring the truth because you cannot admit you have made such a massive error

I've told you, I have no interest in your skewed opinion. As documented above:

""Over the last 40 years, the U.S. federal tax system has undergone three
striking changes, each of which seems to move the federal tax system in
the direction of less progressivity. First, there has been a dramatic
decline in top marginal individual income tax rates
. In the early 1960s, the statutory
individual income tax rate applied to the marginal dollar of the highest incomes
was 91 percent. This marginal tax rate on the highest incomes declined to
28 percent by 1988, increased significantly to 39.6 percent in 1993, and fell to
35 percent as of 2003. Second, corporate income taxes as a fraction of gross
domestic product have fallen by half
, from around 3.5– 4.0 percent of GDP in the
early 1960s to less than 2 percent of GDP in the early 2000s (for example,
Auerbach, 2006). Meanwhile, corporate profits as a share of GDP have not declined
over the period, suggesting that capital owners—who are disproportionately of
above-average incomes— earn relatively more net of taxes today than in the 1960s.
Third, there has been a substantial increase in payroll tax rates financing Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare.
The combined employee– employer
payroll tax rate on labor income has increased from 6 percent in the early 1960s to
over 15 percent in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, the Social Security payroll tax
applies only up to a cap— equal to $90,000 of annual earnings in 2005—and is
therefore a relatively smaller tax burden as incomes rise above the cap."
 
I see red herrings swimming. That has no relevance to me demonstrating that a few of your fellow travelers have lied when they claim that the tax system is less progressive

How does that establish anything. You are talking about the very top one hundredth of the top bracket again.

Yes... that is... I'm not talking about you... can't stand it can you?
 
I've told you, I have no interest in your skewed opinion. As documented above:

""Over the last 40 years, the U.S. federal tax system has undergone three
striking changes, each of which seems to move the federal tax system in
the direction of less progressivity. First, there has been a dramatic
decline in top marginal individual income tax rates
. In the early 1960s, the statutory
individual income tax rate applied to the marginal dollar of the highest incomes
was 91 percent. This marginal tax rate on the highest incomes declined to
28 percent by 1988, increased significantly to 39.6 percent in 1993, and fell to
35 percent as of 2003. Second, corporate income taxes as a fraction of gross
domestic product have fallen by half
, from around 3.5– 4.0 percent of GDP in the
early 1960s to less than 2 percent of GDP in the early 2000s (for example,
Auerbach, 2006). Meanwhile, corporate profits as a share of GDP have not declined
over the period, suggesting that capital owners—who are disproportionately of
above-average incomes— earn relatively more net of taxes today than in the 1960s.
Third, there has been a substantial increase in payroll tax rates financing Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare.
The combined employee– employer
payroll tax rate on labor income has increased from 6 percent in the early 1960s to
over 15 percent in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, the Social Security payroll tax
applies only up to a cap— equal to $90,000 of annual earnings in 2005—and is
therefore a relatively smaller tax burden as incomes rise above the cap."
I guess when you have been schooled on a subject you start diverting with nonsense


you claimed that the current federal income tax is less progressive now. That is a patent lie and you have been proven wrong. so you spew stuff that in no way contradicts the undeniable facts I have presented. The top 5% pay more of the total federal income tax bill now than the bottom 95% That was not the case 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago. So you are just being dishonest when you deny that or you start talking about social security payroll taxes etc
 
Yes... that is... I'm not talking about you... can't stand it can you?

Why are you cluttering up this thread with personal attacks that do not address the point I made ( the one that you and several other like minded types cannot rebut_)?
 
I guess when you have been schooled on a subject you start diverting with nonsense


you claimed that the current federal income tax is less progressive now. That is a patent lie and you have been proven wrong. so you spew stuff that in no way contradicts the undeniable facts I have presented. The top 5% pay more of the total federal income tax bill now than the bottom 95% That was not the case 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago. So you are just being dishonest when you deny that or you start talking about social security payroll taxes etc

LOL! More spin. At least you are consistent!!! You are just being dishonest in your claim that taxes are more progressive based on result of trickle down economics - fewer jobs for the middle class. Your solution - continue trickle down economics.

Deny any of the facts shown below, if you can:

"First, there has been a dramatic
decline in top marginal individual income tax rates."

"Second, corporate income taxes as a fraction of gross
domestic product have fallen by half"

"Third, there has been a substantial increase in payroll tax rates financing Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare."

Do you really believe you are fooling the middle class with your spin?
 
LOL! More spin. At least you are consistent!!! You are just being dishonest in your claim that taxes are more progressive based on result of trickle down economics - fewer jobs for the middle class. Your solution - continue trickle down economics.

Deny any of the facts shown below, if you can:

"First, there has been a dramatic
decline in top marginal individual income tax rates."

"Second, corporate income taxes as a fraction of gross
domestic product have fallen by half"

"Third, there has been a substantial increase in payroll tax rates financing Social
Security retirement benefits and Medicare."

Do you really believe you are fooling the middle class with your spin?
You still wallow in error

you are clueless about the issue, You have claimed that the federal income tax structure is less progressive today than it was in the recent past. That is a lie and yet you squirm and wriggle and divert


that is the only issue I am dealing with right now because it is an issue you have lied about.

stop trying to talk about payroll taxes and social security they are not relevant to the issue you have demonstrated massive mendacity on.
 
Uhhh yes it it look at the last 70 years...

step up to the plate and find another time in that period where the top 5% paid more of the federal income tax share than the bottom 95%
 
step up to the plate and find another time in that period where the top 5% paid more of the federal income tax share than the bottom 95%

That doesnt make it progressive...
But if i would have to gander i would say in 1944 when the income tax was at 94% or 1946-1950 where they paid 91% or i would have to say 1952 when they paid 92% or i would have to say from 1956-1962 when they paid 89% or 1964 when it was 76% but you get my point...
 
An expected response from someone who admittedly has never run a business nor worked in the private sector.

Gee Turtle - if I were you I would scream LIAR LIAR LIAR at the top of my voice. Not that I expect you to remember, but I have stated before that I have run two businesses of my own and did well with them -enough so that I am the only teacher in my neighborhood.

Oh - and that was in the private sector. btw - just signed the contracts three weeks ago for another deal coming up around Christmas..... thats in the private sector too and has NOTHING at all to do with politics or government or teaching.
 
That doesnt make it progressive...
But if i would have to gander i would say in 1944 when the income tax was at 94% or 1946-1950 where they paid 91% or i would have to say 1952 when they paid 92% or i would have to say from 1956-1962 when they paid 89% or 1964 when it was 76% but you get my point...

Your argument is pathetic. do you have any clue what you are talking about? a progressive system means that the top pays a higher share of the tax burden. You are still wallowing in massive fail because you are confusing marginal tax rates with the relative federal income tax burden.
 
Gee Turtle - if I were you I would scream LIAR LIAR LIAR at the top of my voice. Not that I expect you to remember, but I have stated before that I have run two businesses of my own and did well with them -enough so that I am the only teacher in my neighborhood.

Oh - and that was in the private sector. btw - just signed the contracts three weeks ago for another deal coming up around Christmas..... thats in the private sector too and has NOTHING at all to do with politics or government or teaching.

why don't you be a bit more honest and admit that the current federal income tax structure is more progressive now and that marginal tax rates are not the issue and just because they have dropped for all tax payers it does not mean the structure is less progressive

and yes those who claim that because the top rates have dropped, the system is LESS progressive are LYING
 
why don't you be a bit more honest and admit that the current federal income tax structure is more progressive now and that marginal tax rates are not the issue and just because they have dropped for all tax payers it does not mean the structure is less progressive

and yes those who claim that because the top rates have dropped, the system is LESS progressive are LYING

Cannot admit what is not true. I have too much respect for facts.

I would be happy to return to pre Reagan levels however. Now there were some progressive rates.
 
Cannot admit what is not true. I have too much respect for facts.

I would be happy to return to pre Reagan levels however. Now there were some progressive rates.

so you claim that when, for the first time in over 60 years, the top 5% pay more of the income tax burden than the bottom 95%, this is not evidence that the current FIT system is more progressive

Okie dokie
 
Your argument is pathetic. do you have any clue what you are talking about? a progressive system means that the top pays a higher share of the tax burden. You are still wallowing in massive fail because you are confusing marginal tax rates with the relative federal income tax burden.

You said that we are at a high progressive taxation system with the rich paying the most they have in a while...
 
Back
Top Bottom