Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
21. Please don't get hysterical. It serves you ill.
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:39 AM
Jan 2013

You seem unaware that the highest bracket was 50% as late as 1987, and that was after the tax cuts of JFK and Ronald Reagan. Quite normal for those who receive huge amounts of service from the government to pay huge amounts of tax as well. Otherwise, it's theft, which it has been for decades now.


Check your population figures again for the 1950s. I was alive then, but someone as young as you apparently doesn't realize that we were the wealthiest country on earth then as well as now, with quite a few wealthy individuals, as well as a growing and healthy middle class with real upward mobility, not like now.

This is not a theoretical discussion - I'm basing it on historical fact. When a country grows, as we are now and always have, you need more expense from the government, not less, unless you think less education, worse roads, bad air, and sick people are good things to be embraced.


Please show me in arithmetic that an economy of $16 trillion in size cannot raise $4 trillion in taxes with a rate of 100%. See how silly that claim is? Of COURSE there is a taxing level that will allow the federal government to spend 25% of the nation's economy, because 25% is less than 100%.

And somewhere in your argument is some sort of idea that the economy is static, with just the same actual money in it year after year and that somehow taxes reduce the size of an economy, both simply wrong by any economic analysis.

We DO tax everybody in some way now. For example, here in Texas, the poorest person still pays the 8-3/4% state sales tax. So do three year olds if they are buying something with grandpaw's gift money. Renters pay their landlord's property taxes, even if it's awful housing. And on and on.

Of course, the tax segment getting the best treatment is the artificial person catergory - corporations. They pay nearly nothing, about 1/10 of all federal taxes, even though their profits this year of about $6 trillion are nearly half of the total economy. In fact, by simply charging a net effective rate of 16% on corporate profits alone, without adding to any other tax group at all, would raise the $1.1 trillion deficit and close it. 35% would allow us to pay the debt off completely in 10 years and accumulate large surpluses in excess of $2 trillion per year after that.

That would be my personal preference, but hey, I'm not running things, obviously. And we didn't even discuss new tax possibilities, like a transaction tax on every stock trade. There's money everywhere in this richest of all countries that ever existed. There's just lots of people who don't want to pay the government some of it.

And to think... We had the problem solved MannyGoldstein Dec 2012 #1
That is why we should simply go off the fiscal cliff and JDPriestly Dec 2012 #2
Agreed n/t golfguru Dec 2012 #5
Correct, just return to the Clinton era, when we had two years of budget surplus mbperrin Dec 2012 #6
Actually 4 years of surpluses under Clinton progree Dec 2012 #8
If we return to both the tax rates and the spending levels under Clinton, you'd have a point mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #15
Oh, okay, since we couldn't do ALL of that, then NONE of it was worth doing, mbperrin Jan 2013 #16
No. Just saying we need to do both to fix the problem. mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #17
Sure they can. The current budget is about 25% of GDP. mbperrin Jan 2013 #18
Minor clarification of last paragraph. Otherwise, generally I agree. progree Jan 2013 #19
No, they can't, unless we tax almost everybody mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #20
Please don't get hysterical. It serves you ill. mbperrin Jan 2013 #21
Not hysterical, factual, and here's the arithmetic mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #22
Better look at corporate profits again. On track for $6 trillion this year. mbperrin Jan 2013 #23
You throw numbers around with no sources. What else do you want me to show you? mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #24
Well, Google is your friend. Nonetheless, mbperrin Jan 2013 #25
Not correct. You are annualizing a number that has already been annualized mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #26
That's OK, none of it is real. nt bemildred Dec 2012 #3
So you must think the riots in Greece and Spain are not real either? golfguru Dec 2012 #4
No, I think the interest on the federal debt is not real. bemildred Dec 2012 #7
"No, I think" n/t progree Dec 2012 #9
I have owned US Treasury bonds & US Savings bonds golfguru Dec 2012 #10
It's pointless, I think he just wants attention progree Dec 2012 #11
You are right golfguru Jan 2013 #12
I don't think its dishonesty, just some, umm, cognitive issues. Here's another one: progree Jan 2013 #14
Your argument is circular. bemildred Jan 2013 #13
People don't realize how deep we're in. FlyDaddy145 Jan 2013 #27
And the really smart people.. sendero Feb 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Cost of interest on feder...»Reply #21