• 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?

If you are going to call me Stupid you ought to learn how to spell BURDEN

You are unable to fathom the fact that the rich bear more of the income tax burden now than at any time in the last several decades.

And you fail to "fathom" that it's because they are earning more (or keeping more for themselves) than ever before, and the working class has seen no rise in income in nearly a decade.

If you cut the tax rate in half, and they are paying more than they ever have... it doesn't take a degree from MIT to understand why.

Cutting taxes more for the wealthy will not change this and raising taxes on those that will not be able to feed their families or the fuel to drive to the only descent jobs available will not change that either.

If you want the tax burden to be more equal, earnings for EVERYONE must rise with rises in productivity (which we have) and rises in profits (which we have). The rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.

The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets. And the top bracket tops out at about $375k. Meaning someone that in today's economy is just doing pretty well is paying the same rate as the top one tenth of one percent, the 400 wealthiest holding 85% of the wealth. There should be 12-16 tax brackets.

Current
Head of Household
Marginal Tax Rate...............Tax Brackets
10.0%............................. $0 $11,95
15.0% ............................. $11,950 $45,55
25.0%............................. $45,550 $117,65
28.0%............................. $117,650 $190,55
33.0%............................. $190,550 $373,65
35.0%............................. $373,650 and up

I'm sorry, but in a society that has people making tens of millions annually and tax brackets that lump the new middle class (bottom of the top tier) in with the wealthiest, that is gross incompetence. The real reason for this is to play to the far more numerous bottom of the top tier to support massive tax breaks for the top of the top tier.

The lower tiers have already seen their taxes double since 1964 while the wealthiest saw them halved... now you want more? Please.

What the tax brackets should look like..

6.0%............................... $0 $11,95
8.0% .............................. $11,950 $45,550
12.0%............................. $45,550 $117,650
15.0%............................. $117,650 $190,550
18.0%............................. $190,550 $373,650
30.0%............................. $373,650 $500,000
35.0%............................. $500,001 $750,000
40.0%............................. $750,001 $2,000,000
45.0%............................. $2,000,001 5,000,000
50.0%............................. $5,000,001 10,000,000
60.0%............................. $10,000,001 $20,000,000
70.0%............................. $20,000,001 $40,000,000
90.0%............................. $40,000,001 and up

I agree, the problem is the marginal taxes... but not the rates, the brackets.
 
why should anyone have 90% of their next tax dollar taken by the government

You need to pay that rate if you want someone else to

Progressive income taxes encourage people like you to vote for politicians who promise you that only the rich will pay more taxes

no person should pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes.
 
why should anyone have 90% of their next tax dollar taken by the government

You need to pay that rate if you want someone else to

Progressive income taxes encourage people like you to vote for politicians who promise you that only the rich will pay more taxes

no person should pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes.

When the wealthy who control the economy stop bringing it to the brink of disaster with no consequences to them, then I'll shed a tear for them. When we get ourselves out of debt and the majority of the people are employed with a living wage then we can talk about tax rates and what's fair.

Tyranny does not confine itself to government, it more often arises from private interests. Just as the constitution tries to protect us from our gov't, our gov't was to protect us against the corporate privateers that seek to accumulate wealth and power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Precisely because corporations are soulless, amoral entities, they require (as the founders said) tight regulation to keep them from monopolizing the wealth of the country.

This is a no brainer... if 400 people have 85% of the wealth locked up, commerce ceases to be possible. You do realize we are trying to run the world's largest economy on 15% of available wealth... right? It's not freakin possible. That money MUST be put back into the economy, and if they won't do it voluntarily, as a last resort, We the People sure as hell will tax it out of them. Why? Because YOU CAN"T RUN THE WORLD'S LARGEST ECONOMY ON 15% OF IT"S WEALTH!

It's simple number mechanics. However much that sucks, the super wealthy are not being deprived of anything. Doubling taxes on the remaining 15% is literally taking food off the table which sucks so much more... for so many more.

Get a soul TD... seriously!
 
When the wealthy who control the economy stop bringing it to the brink of disaster with no consequences to them, then I'll shed a tear for them.

Like what? Banking? The banking crisis started with government.

When we get ourselves out of debt and the majority of the people are employed with a living wage then we can talk about tax rates and what's fair.


What in the **** are you talking about? A living wage like I have said before is economically unsound. Its a liberal pipe dream, like the minimum wage was. They both assume far to much about the market without actually looking into those assumptions when going in.

Well.. I guess I shouldn't say minimum wage went in without taking them into account. It damn well knew it would discriminate against low skill workers and it knew it would do nothing to raise quality of life. But all the same, the people that believe in what is it is sold as today believe in a pipe dream that never was and never will be.

And I have no idea why its the responsibly of the rich to pay for the debt.

Tyranny does not confine itself to government, it more often arises from private interests. Just as the constitution tries to protect us from our gov't, our gov't was to protect us against the corporate privateers that seek to accumulate wealth and power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Precisely because corporations are soulless, amoral entities, they require (as the founders said) tight regulation to keep them from monopolizing the wealth of the country.

Corporations are the product of govt. Try your rant again after you figure that out.

This is a no brainer... if 400 people have 85% of the wealth locked up, commerce ceases to be possible. You do realize we are trying to run the world's largest economy on 15% of available wealth... right? It's not freakin possible. That money MUST be put back into the economy, and if they won't do it voluntarily, as a last resort, We the People sure as hell will tax it out of them. Why? Because YOU CAN"T RUN THE WORLD'S LARGEST ECONOMY ON 15% OF IT"S WEALTH!

Taxing wealth is not the way to get wealth back in your hands. First..

"Corporations are the product of govt. "

Second, it called the market. Use it.

It's simple number mechanics. However much that sucks, the super wealthy are not being deprived of anything. Doubling taxes on the remaining 15% is literally taking food off the table which sucks so much more... for so many more.

You do realize that is utter stupidity I hope. Even with the government helping in the creation of corporations what you get in your life is in your control.

Get a soul TD... seriously!

Get a clue...seriously.

And your emotional arguments mean nothing. Use economic arguments please.
 
Last edited:
And you fail to "fathom" that it's because they are earning more (or keeping more for themselves) than ever before, and the working class has seen no rise in income in nearly a decade.

If you cut the tax rate in half, and they are paying more than they ever have... it doesn't take a degree from MIT to understand why.

Cutting taxes more for the wealthy will not change this and raising taxes on those that will not be able to feed their families or the fuel to drive to the only descent jobs available will not change that either.

If you want the tax burden to be more equal, earnings for EVERYONE must rise with rises in productivity (which we have) and rises in profits (which we have). The rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.

The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets. And the top bracket tops out at about $375k. Meaning someone that in today's economy is just doing pretty well is paying the same rate as the top one tenth of one percent, the 400 wealthiest holding 85% of the wealth. There should be 12-16 tax brackets.

Current
Head of Household
Marginal Tax Rate...............Tax Brackets
10.0%............................. $0 $11,95
15.0% ............................. $11,950 $45,55
25.0%............................. $45,550 $117,65
28.0%............................. $117,650 $190,55
33.0%............................. $190,550 $373,65
35.0%............................. $373,650 and up

I'm sorry, but in a society that has people making tens of millions annually and tax brackets that lump the new middle class (bottom of the top tier) in with the wealthiest, that is gross incompetence. The real reason for this is to play to the far more numerous bottom of the top tier to support massive tax breaks for the top of the top tier.

The lower tiers have already seen their taxes double since 1964 while the wealthiest saw them halved... now you want more? Please.

What the tax brackets should look like..

6.0%............................... $0 $11,95
8.0% .............................. $11,950 $45,550
12.0%............................. $45,550 $117,650
15.0%............................. $117,650 $190,550
18.0%............................. $190,550 $373,650
30.0%............................. $373,650 $500,000
35.0%............................. $500,001 $750,000
40.0%............................. $750,001 $2,000,000
45.0%............................. $2,000,001 5,000,000
50.0%............................. $5,000,001 10,000,000
60.0%............................. $10,000,001 $20,000,000
70.0%............................. $20,000,001 $40,000,000
90.0%............................. $40,000,001 and up

I agree, the problem is the marginal taxes... but not the rates, the brackets.


Excellent! A well reasoned post backed up with facts!
 
why should anyone have 90% of their next tax dollar taken by the government

You need to pay that rate if you want someone else to

Progressive income taxes encourage people like you to vote for politicians who promise you that only the rich will pay more taxes

no person should pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes.

*Yawn* More opinion and no facts....
 
why should anyone have 90% of their next tax dollar taken by the government

You need to pay that rate if you want someone else to

Progressive income taxes encourage people like you to vote for politicians who promise you that only the rich will pay more taxes

no person should pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes.

When you tax something you get less of it. Right?

So if overconcentration of wealth is an issue tax it until doing so becomes unattractive.
 
And you fail to "fathom" that it's because they are earning more (or keeping more for themselves) than ever before, and the working class has seen no rise in income in nearly a decade.

If you cut the tax rate in half, and they are paying more than they ever have... it doesn't take a degree from MIT to understand why.

Cutting taxes more for the wealthy will not change this and raising taxes on those that will not be able to feed their families or the fuel to drive to the only descent jobs available will not change that either.

If you want the tax burden to be more equal, earnings for EVERYONE must rise with rises in productivity (which we have) and rises in profits (which we have). The rise in productivity is almost exclusively the domain of the worker, any profits based on that should be passed to those responsible for it, period, not co-opted by those that control the flow of finances. High marginal tax rates on the wealthiest discourage this behavior. When taxes are in the 70%-90% range, directors and owners are less likely to steal 400% more on 104% rise in profits and instead return more of that to the worker rather than be taxed on it.

The first part of the problem is that our current code only has six brackets. And the top bracket tops out at about $375k. Meaning someone that in today's economy is just doing pretty well is paying the same rate as the top one tenth of one percent, the 400 wealthiest holding 85% of the wealth. There should be 12-16 tax brackets.

Current
Head of Household
Marginal Tax Rate...............Tax Brackets
10.0%............................. $0 $11,95
15.0% ............................. $11,950 $45,55
25.0%............................. $45,550 $117,65
28.0%............................. $117,650 $190,55
33.0%............................. $190,550 $373,65
35.0%............................. $373,650 and up

I'm sorry, but in a society that has people making tens of millions annually and tax brackets that lump the new middle class (bottom of the top tier) in with the wealthiest, that is gross incompetence. The real reason for this is to play to the far more numerous bottom of the top tier to support massive tax breaks for the top of the top tier.

The lower tiers have already seen their taxes double since 1964 while the wealthiest saw them halved... now you want more? Please.

What the tax brackets should look like..

6.0%............................... $0 $11,95
8.0% .............................. $11,950 $45,550
12.0%............................. $45,550 $117,650
15.0%............................. $117,650 $190,550
18.0%............................. $190,550 $373,650
30.0%............................. $373,650 $500,000
35.0%............................. $500,001 $750,000
40.0%............................. $750,001 $2,000,000
45.0%............................. $2,000,001 5,000,000
50.0%............................. $5,000,001 10,000,000
60.0%............................. $10,000,001 $20,000,000
70.0%............................. $20,000,001 $40,000,000
90.0%............................. $40,000,001 and up

I agree, the problem is the marginal taxes... but not the rates, the brackets.
I KNEW it. If some people had their way, there would be no end to the tax burden, all the way up to 90% of someone's income. A lot of people (ok, on the left) deny that they want taxation to get up into the 70-90% range, which doesn't really follow. If someone believes higher taxes are the right answer, then it makes sense that that person would believe that the more taxation the better ~ which is pretty much exactly what this post argues.
 
Last edited:
When you tax something you get less of it. Right?

So if overconcentration of wealth is an issue tax it until doing so becomes unattractive.

Usually when you see a problem fixing it involves facing the causes of the problem. Taxes does not reach that end. It just punishes people to punish people.
 
I KNEW it. If some people had their way, there would be no end to the tax burden, all the way up to 90% of someone's income. A lot of people (ok, on the left) deny that they want taxation to get up into the 70-90% range, which doesn't really follow. If someone believes higher taxes are the right answer, then it makes sense that that person would believe that the more taxation the better ~ which is pretty much exactly what this post argues.

That is all it ever is. They hide behind this wealth disparity argument but they aren't interested in looking at causes but only the wealth itself. Its becomes pretty apparent that the entire argument is not serious.
 
Last edited:
why should anyone have 90% of their next tax dollar taken by the government

You need to pay that rate if you want someone else to

Progressive income taxes encourage people like you to vote for politicians who promise you that only the rich will pay more taxes

no person should pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes.

We had a much healthier distribution of income/wealth when we had higher marginal rates.

With high marginal rates, business owners and investors have a greater incentive to reinvest in a business (capital and labor), as the government is essentially subsidizing that reinvestment and less incentive to take cash out of the business in the form of salary, where it will be taxed.

We should have high marginal rates on very high income and low capital gains rates, again to encourage long-term investment and long-term thinking.

Funny, that the middle class began eroding away once we started whacking away at high marginal rates? We can not have a strong economy without a strong middle class.
 

Attachments

  • Wealth disparity in US.jpg
    Wealth disparity in US.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 206
Yeah, long term thinking, as in the more you make, the less you get to keep. LOL What would be the incentive again to invest?
 
Usually when you see a problem fixing it involves facing the causes of the problem. Taxes does not reach that end. It just punishes people to punish people.

He proposed how to fix the cause of the problem of too much wealth concentrated at the top.
 
He proposed how to fix the cause of the problem of too much wealth concentrated at the top.

No, he didn't. He faced none of the causes of the problem, in fact, he didn't even mention one of them.
 
Yeah, long term thinking, as in the more you make, the less you get to keep. LOL What would be the incentive again to invest?

The same incentive we had in the 50's when marginal tax rates for the top tax bracket were triple what they are now, to invest in business and jobs rather than be taxed on your income, as opposed to just hording the wealth as is being done today.
 
Yeah, long term thinking, as in the more you make, the less you get to keep. LOL What would be the incentive again to invest?

The long-term thinking is rewarding capital gain (return on investment) rather than salary (taking capital away from a business).
 
The same incentive we had in the 50's when marginal tax rates for the top tax bracket were triple what they are now, to invest in business and jobs rather than be taxed on your income, as opposed to just hording the wealth as is being done today.

Oh the fifties, where we came up with colored appliances. Such great times.. lol
 
The same incentive we had in the 50's when marginal tax rates for the top tax bracket were triple what they are now, to invest in business and jobs rather than be taxed on your income, as opposed to just hording the wealth as is being done today.

The long-term thinking is rewarding capital gain (return on investment) rather than salary (taking capital away from a business).

What's the point of investing in business and jobs, if you're not allowed to make money on it, or have to give most of it to the government? Let's be honest, you all are not concerned with businesses or investors, those are the bad guys, right? This is simply about, what you believe, to be a "healthier" redistribution of wealth (as upsideguy pretty much said in his post).
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen a DemonMyst post in awhile. I see nothing's changed. :roll: BTW, pretty sure it's "burden".

If you have to correct someone's spelling.. You are obviously over your head in the topec being discussed.. Let us know when you actuilly have something intelligent to add instead of being spelling or gramar police!!

If you have nothing to add to a thread then don't post.. Do us all a favor and go troll somewhere else..

I left a couple of mispelled words for you.. I just want you feel usefull.. Just trying to be nice..
 
If you are going to call me Stupid you ought to learn how to spell BURDEN

You are unable to fathom the fact that the rich bear more of the income tax burden now than at any time in the last several decades.

Don't feed the trolls.. See.. Your not even smart enough to do that..

I never claimed to be a perfict speller.. But I am not stuped enough to base my entire arguement on a word that someone mispelled.. If you can't address my issues and points then you have nothing to say.. Which is again par for the course for you..

Again.. I left some mispelled words.. Don't want you to run out of lame excuses to not address someone's post.. Not to mention feeding the trolls.. Got to keep them fed don't we..
 
Sure, most awesome posts start with, "You are stupid" or some variation thereof. LOL

MOre ever widening stupidity.

Don't let the symantics fool you.. If he can call others stupid, then he can live with being called stupid.. If he wants to report me.. Fine let him.. It is all he has left to prove a point.. If he can't argue the facts, then damn it he can report someone for doing the same thing he does..

That is really stupid if you ask me..
 
If you have to correct someone's spelling.. You are obviously over your head in the topec being discussed.. Let us know when you actuilly have something intelligent to add instead of being spelling or gramar police!!

If you have nothing to add to a thread then don't post.. Do us all a favor and go troll somewhere else..

I left a couple of mispelled words for you.. I just want you feel usefull.. Just trying to be nice..

Don't feed the trolls.. See.. Your not even smart enough to do that..

I never claimed to be a perfict speller.. But I am not stuped enough to base my entire arguement on a word that someone mispelled.. If you can't address my issues and points then you have nothing to say.. Which is again par for the course for you..

Again.. I left some mispelled words.. Don't want you to run out of lame excuses to not address someone's post.. Not to mention feeding the trolls.. Got to keep them fed don't we..

Don't let the symantics fool you.. If he can call others stupid, then he can live with being called stupid.. If he wants to report me.. Fine let him.. It is all he has left to prove a point.. If he can't argue the facts, then damn it he can report someone for doing the same thing he does..

That is really stupid if you ask me..

Hummm, this topic really must be over my head. I'm missing all the on topic arguments in these posts.
 
Last edited:
I'm missing all the on topic arguments in these posts.

Including your own obviously!

Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work

"1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth."

"2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth."

"3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth."

"4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation."


"Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit."
 
Last edited:
When the wealthy who control the economy stop bringing it to the brink of disaster with no consequences to them, then I'll shed a tear for them. When we get ourselves out of debt and the majority of the people are employed with a living wage then we can talk about tax rates and what's fair.

Tyranny does not confine itself to government, it more often arises from private interests. Just as the constitution tries to protect us from our gov't, our gov't was to protect us against the corporate privateers that seek to accumulate wealth and power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Precisely because corporations are soulless, amoral entities, they require (as the founders said) tight regulation to keep them from monopolizing the wealth of the country.

This is a no brainer... if 400 people have 85% of the wealth locked up, commerce ceases to be possible. You do realize we are trying to run the world's largest economy on 15% of available wealth... right? It's not freakin possible. That money MUST be put back into the economy, and if they won't do it voluntarily, as a last resort, We the People sure as hell will tax it out of them. Why? Because YOU CAN"T RUN THE WORLD'S LARGEST ECONOMY ON 15% OF IT"S WEALTH!

It's simple number mechanics. However much that sucks, the super wealthy are not being deprived of anything. Doubling taxes on the remaining 15% is literally taking food off the table which sucks so much more... for so many more.

Get a soul TD... seriously!

assuming facts not in evidence combined with a healthy dose of envy.
 
Excellent! A well reasoned post backed up with facts!

what facts, he makes claims that confiscatory tax rates are good-that is not a fact, he is a classic wealth confiscating lefty who opines without proof
 
Back
Top Bottom