I'm amazed at the number of "liberals" on this board that...

[kentuck]

seem to have been indoctrinated with the conservative ideology. Especially when it comes to tax rates or a progressive tax structure. They seem to believe like Ronnie Reagan that the 32% tax rate is best for job production and wealth creation, even though, the facts do not bear that out. "People will stop working if you make their taxes too high", they say. They will argue that the corporations will move all our jobs overseas if we raise the taxes too high. It doesn't factor that the huge taxcuts gave them the incentive and the wealth to move the jobs to begin with...

[annabanana]

1. They also seem to think that if you give business owners more

money, they'll hire more people..

Who the hell ever swallowed that crap to start with? No one hires someone unless they can't handle the work themselves (and they've run out of teenagers they can bully into working for free)

[bluestateguy]

2. Indeed, 32% is too low. 39.6% is a better number.

nt

[Idealism]

9. Those were some good economic years n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. 90% better still.

[ixion]

48. I would stop working way before it became that insane...

in fact, 40% is out-of-line, IMO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. 90% wouldn't kick in until over $500K.

The TMTR was 91% from 1951-1963. A horrible period in US history. Oh, wait! It produced the largest middle class in the history of the world.


Eta: And the TMTR was 70% until 1981. Right about the time when deficits began ballooning, wealth disparity began increasing... :think:

[HughBeaumont]

3. That's if one believes corporations are taxed like individuals are.

Like every conservative argument, the "Tax the corporations and it affects all of us. They'll raise their prices to cover their costs!" screed falls flat on it's face as always.

[kentuck]

10. and there is a contradiction with their theory of supply and demand...

even if taxes were 90%, there would still be the law of supply and demand, would there not? They would still compete with each other to get the most customers for their products, regardless of the tax rates?

[backscatter712]

4. I'm all for soakin' the rich.

They've been getting away with murder, now it's time they pay their fair share.

[CountAllVotes]

5. suits me just fine too

they've been getting tax-breaks, etc. while everyone "inbetween" gets zero.

:kick:

[Ferret Annica]

7. Eat the rich

show them no quarter. They are more then glad to treat us in that manner, so quid pro quo.

[Somawas]

50. Soylent green is RICH people.

[Dave From Canada]

21. It's sad that you guys have so been poisoned to believe that someone who runs a successful business,

is somehow taking something from you. According to IRS stats, the top 5% of wage earners payed 60% of federal income taxes. How much more is their "fair share." 70%? 80%? 100%?

[Profprileasn]

26. Agree

How much is too much? Aren't those the guys that are typically your bosses and employing you?

[stillcool]

28. Does your boss make a million a year?

[John Q. Citizen]

34. I'm usually not employed by wage earners. Owners yes, wager earners, no.

[Raineyb]

79. So what? Since when are bosses interested in their workers beyond whether or not the

worker can do the job? Need childcare? They don't care. Is your car in the shop and you can't travel? They don't care. Do they pay too little? The bosses don't care.

But even if they were the apocryphal good boss, who cares? The taxes is to pay for the commons. Businesses take advantage of the education given by the public schools, they use the roads more, they use more of the water so since they use more of the commons they ought to pay more for it. It's not like the taxes will leave them in the poorhouse and it's the price to pay for a civilized society. Are we supposed to allow these people to freeload off the commons and not pay anything back?

If they don't like it they can always leave and when they do give up all the advantages being that come with being a member of this society. Is that not what the RW says to liberals when the war is brought up?

Regards

[stillcool]

27. Look at the taxes they actually pay..

after all their deductions. Then come back with that argument. We're not talking about a 'successful business'..we're talking about global corporations. But you keep giving them their tax-breaks, tax-cuts, and watch them ship your job away..although I wonder how you earn your money. Are you self-employed? Do you care about the people in this country?

[Spazito]

35. That's exactly it re what is really paid AFTER deductions and accessing...

all the loopholes in the tax structure that were built in to protect the top 5%. The real figure that tells it as it is would be gross income - deductions/loopholes = taxable income. The wealthier one is the greater the differential between gross and taxable income.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. You seem to be confusing wage earners with business owners. They are seperate entities.

[tangent90]

43. I am learning that defending capitalism in any way here on DU is an invitation to riducule and hate.

I'm beginning to wonder if anybody else here actually has a job. :shrug:

[NoGOPZone]

52. So less than ten days here, and you've concluded we're all unemployed socialists?

I'll have to ask the mods to post a notice to that effect on the home page.

[tangent90]

55. Beginning to wonder is not making a conclusion.

1-800-ABCDEFG

[NoGOPZone]

56. And 'learning' as per your OP is not beginning to wonder nt.

[tangent90]

57. I have no idea what that means.

Could you please post it in English? :D
Thank you.
Oh, I see...you weren't able to grasp that I commented on 2 separate but related issues, one in the title and one in the message.
Never mind. :-)

[NoGOPZone]

60. Sure

'I am LEARNING that defending capitalism in any way here on DU is an invitation to riducule and hate'

Your original post. OP is our shorthand for Orignal Post. One of the many acronyms you'll learn here given time. ;-)

Need further explanation?

[tangent90]

67. You are so right. I need to change that: I HAVE learned that...

Thanks!
:D

[tabasco]

68. You seem to conflate "capitalism" with "unregulated capitalism."

Unregulated capitaliasm, in which wealth and power become concentrated in a small group, will ALWAYS lead to revolution.

If you don't like regulated capitalism, move to fucking Somalia. No taxes at all there.

[tangent90]

70. I understand the distinction, but it's not relevant to the fact that some folks hereabouts

fail to make it...condemning -any- flavor or implementation as equally evil. Don't take my word for it, read the messages.
:shrug: :hi:

[Tesha]

72. No, we're all just dirty unemployed hippie commies. (NT)

[jpak]

85. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111

Nice try though

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

90. And trolling doesn't productively add to the dialogue. nt

[Doctor_J]

44. They make 95% of the income. Why is 60% of the taxes such a hardship?

:shrug:

[kentuck]

66. Bingo !

The crux of the argument. Why should they not pay 95% of the taxes if they make 95% of the income? Would that not be a fairer tax??

[Lucian]

86. No kidding!

[LooseWilly]

45. That number is easily mis-interpreted...

If the top 5% of wage earners earn 60% of all income in the country, then it would follow that they would pay 60% of income taxes.
It would also follow that the other 95% of wage earners are only earning 40% of all income .
Now, we could argue the "justice" of 95% of the wage earners in the country having to split 40% of the wages...
We could also consider the base-line costs of living, and when decisions are made as to where the country could generate revenues, where the margins that are most able to be utilized are to be found.
It seems to me that if 5% have 60% of the wages... those are the folks that have the most cushion to spare more for the Nation's Interests.
It also seems to me that they're the ones that have the most to lose if the Nation starts coming apart at the seams.
It also occurs to me that, since those top wage earners are usually tied to corporations which benefit more from US activities around the world, from maintaining shipping lanes to propping up dictatorships that provide resources to forcing contracting US corporations to do infrastructure work in developing nations as a pre-requisite for World Bank loans... and so on... it seems to me that that top 5% is profiting more from all that Government activity... and hence they should be paying a greater share of the costs.

However, the US seems to have come to believe that somehow those who "run a successful business" are virtually Holy Men. They deserve special tax "incentives" for some reason... as if they would give up their "holy cause" of running businesses and just become employees of someone else, which would be a sin, if the evil cause of equality were to gain more traction.

I'm not buying it.

The real question is, what percentage of their income do that top 5% pay, vs. that bottom 95%. I'm betting that the top 5% pay less of a percentage of their income than the bottom 95%, despite the fact that they can spare more.

[Jackpine Radical]

65. Not to mention that the wealthy pay a much lower percentage of their income

in property taxes (including as a portion of rent), sales taxes, FICA, etc. I pay 15% in FICA; a self employed person with $200,000 taxable income pays 7.5% in FICA. Etc.

[Lucian]

88. ...

:eyes:

[Sultana]

6. Some use to be Repubs

:shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

18. some still are. n/t

[Pithlet]

33. Yep. n/t

[sandnsea]

8. Told the workers to make way for the investor class

And now that the investor class is broke, they want to blame the workers who never had a pot to piss in in the first place, and whine about paying taxes when they've been sucking every penny out of the workers' FICA taxes for the last 20 years. And then we're just stupid if we only have social security to retire on, and they want us to cut that too. AND take "personal responsibility" for the whole mess.

Fuck Them.

[spanone]

11. agree

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. It's been 3 decades of Repuke ideology....

...plus we've had our own brand of right wingerism inculcating us with this bs too, the DLC.

[Dave From Canada]

14. America already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the G7. And people keeping more of

their own money isn't equal to being given anything. I don't know if 32% is best, but it certainly isn't 70%. Who wants to work for the government 8 - 9 months of the year?

[GOPBasher]

37. You don't understand marginal rate.

Although I agree with you that 70% is too high, the top marginal rate is not, as you seem to believe, the tax rate of anyone's entire income. It's just the rate taken off of the money above a certain margin. Right now, the top marginal rate is 35% and I think the top margin is about $250,000/year, which means that only one's income *above that level* gets taxed at the top rate, and their first $250,000 is taxed at other, lower rates. So, their tax burden is far less than 35%. So, if the rate was 70% (and again, I do agree this is too high), they would NOT be "working for the government 9-10 months a year.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Yes but that is a bullshit statistic - high rate, very low actual taxes.

"Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%."

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

Corporations are adept at two things in this area: writing themselves exceptions in the tax code, and avoiding the taxes they couldn't legislate away.

[stray cat]

15. Amazed by the number who hold a different opinion than your own?

I don't know the perfect number or the absolute outcome - but I'm dubious anyone is absolutely right.

[patrice]

19. True. There are no absolutes and that fact is so true that not even it is an absolute.

So the question is: to what degree is such-and-such "true" and under what circumstances and to what degree is such-and-such "not true" and under what circumstances. Compare, Contrast, Rinse, Repeat . . .

:hi:

[patrice]

16. The principle that "we can't do it for ourselves", ergo we need the rich or the government to do it

for us overlaps two significant demographics.

[Horse with no Name]

17. I'm surprised that anyone still thinks they are "liberals"

after what we see them espouse. Seems we were infested a while back with wolves in sheep's clothing.
Ye shall know them by which they speak...

[Thickasabrick]

20. The corporations already did the "moving the jobs overseas" part

Nothing left to bitch about.

[barb162]

22. Millions of jobs were moved overseas when taxes were low.

These last eight years. I'd like to see huge rariffs on goods which should be made here again.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Raise my salary to 100 mil a year and my tax rate to 90%.

See if I keep working.

[wickerwoman]

38. That's still $10 million a year

which beats the shit out of the $50,000 I made my best year ever working 80 hr/week and stressing myself into a nervous breakdown.

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Yeah, I know. Mee too.

[wickerwoman]

61. Whoops, sorry.

I'm irony-challenged today.

:hi:

[stevedeshazer]

24. Before St. Ronnie, the top tax bracket was 70%. The rich didn't starve.

I agree, kentuck.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. It was 90% in the Ike years--

although I don't believe anyone actually paid that.

[Still Sensible]

25. I occasionally get flamed for being less than a pure progressive

and admittedly tend to be more pragmatic than many DUers... but on this issue, I fully agree with the OP. The unholy deal Reagan struck with the democratic controlled Congress in the 80s was that in exchange for lowering the top tax rates to the 30s, Reagan would close the loopholes that made the much higher top tax rates a misleading joke.

Unfortunately for all of us, Reagan's movement eventually went much farther than that original unholy deal. The top tax rate continued to be chipped away, and then the tax cut coup de grace was when the capital gains tax was reduced. The final nail in the economic coffin of the middle class was the success of the de-regulators--which left the robber barons with the ability to invent ways to make profits out of thin air and on the backs of the already economically marginalized middle class and poor.

The administration is certainly on the right track. I suggest the "sweet spot" for the most efficient top tax rate should be in the neighborhood of 50%. It can be in the mid-40s if we correct the unreasonably low capital gains rate. I don't think it has to be the "old" rate, but it needs to be significantly higher in the 25% range.

President Obama IMO is also on the right track cutting tax rates for working Americans. Hopefully, he will be able to successfully implement his campaign promise to "reward companies that create and retain jobs at home and punish corporations that ship our jobs overseas." The trick there will be to find the spot where it is no longer an economic windfall to outsource jobs.

[watrwefitinfor]

29. And then I have noted some come to DU conflating

wage earners with corporations. Do they think we are so dumb we don't know the difference? Or are they? Or do the seriously believe corporations can be wage earners?

Wat

[Fla Dem]

30. Two-Thirds Of US Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes

The lie that US Corporations pay the highest taxes continues to be circulated. Yes the tax rate is high, but there are so many loopholes, 2/3 of US Corporations do not pay taxes.


More info.........

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016642.php

I'd hoped we were past this, but so long as congressional Republicans want to re-litigate this as part of the stimulus debate, we might as well set the record straight. Igor Volsky explained that the Republican argument is "full of so many other holes, you can drain spaghetti with it."

* America's Effective Tax Rate Is Comparable To Other G7 Nations: According to a recent U.S. Treasury report, the effective tax rate on equipment financed by equity is 24 percent, the same as the G-7 average. The rate on equipment financed by debt is minus 46 percent, meaning that the government actually subsidizes these investments rather than taxing them.

* Two-Thirds Of Corporations Did Not Pay Taxes: According to last month's Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, between 1998 and 2005 "about two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay taxes" because of a variety of corporate tax loopholes.

[TahitiNut]

31. I'm for massively progressive income tax rates on LARGE corporations.

Like 50% on profits between $1 billion and $2 billion, 55% on profits between $2 billion and $3 billion, 60% on profits between $3 billion and $4 billion, 65% on profits between $4 billion and $5 billion, ... and so on.

Not willing to break up the "too big to fail" corporations? Fine. Tax the FUCK out of them.


Further, I'd enact changes on tax rates assessed on capital gains (unearned income) such that, at the lowest levels they were taxed at lower rates (so ordinary working folks didn't get screwed out of their savings) and at levels above about $100K the tax rates climbed higher than for earned income ... to a top bracket of about 65%.

It's about FUCKING TIME that earned income (from one's own labors) received SOME favorable tax treatment. :grr:

[conscious evolution]

76. I like your idea

I would make the tax rate for corporate profits from goverment contracts even higher,though.

[GOPBasher]

36. I agree that 32% is too low, but the years of 90% were not good either.

A good number is about 40%. Perhaps up to 50% for a very high top marginal rate. But when Kennedy decreased the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%, tax revenues went up, just like supply side theory suggests. The problem came when Reagan brought it way too far down. Then Clinton's top marginal rate of 39.6% was about perfect, and we had some great years. Then came W.

[ThomWV]

40. Really? I thoght things were generally humming along during the 50's

[GOPBasher]

78. That's true, the economy was great. But government revenue actually increased

when Kennedy took the top marginal rate down from 90% to 70%.

[Raineyb]

80. Because he also closed the loopholes used to get out of paying taxes

Lowering taxes in and of themselves never raised revenue in the long run. You get a short uptick with people doing whatever to take advantage of the tax reduction but in the long run it doesn't do anything but reduce revenues coming in.

Frankly, the idea that lowering taxes gets more money in is and always has been utterly laughable and completely anti-mathematical. Collecting less money in order to get more? It didn't make sense to me when I was 9 and it doesn't make sense now.


Regards

[GOPBasher]

82. It can if it spurs economic activity enought to make for lower tax rates. This

did happen with Kennedy, because he took it from a ridiculous level down to something reasonable. 90% really DID create a disincentive. The problem is, then Reagan took the rate far too low, and W. did the same thing.

The difference here is degree. I think 90% really did create a disincentive, whereas 39.6% did not at all.

[readmoreoften]

39. With the consistent shift of both parties to the Right, many Moderate Republicans have no idea

that they are anti-union, blame-the-working-class typical pre-Religious Right Republicans. My guess is that about 10-15% of DU falls into this category. About 40% sympathize with these folks and try to see "both sides." Eventually, the party will make a clear stand or it will split.

[fascisthunter]

42. The Tax Rate was Much Higher Once and Yet the Most Prosperous Time in America

that claim that high tax rates leads to less jobs is bullshit. The opposite is actually more true.

[tom_paine]

46. The triumph of Bushiganda mean all conversations start at the Bushiganda

Bushiganda = "Conventional Wisdom"

THAT'S what the Democratic Leadership allowed to happen when they decided not to fight back when the Rush bullshit started 30 years ago. When they decided to play Mr. and Ms. "Nice Guy'" and replied to Rushian calumies by trying to ignore them or by saying, "You might be right, but that's besides the point..."

But what the Rushpublics said was NEVER right, it was all calumnies, lies, and Nazi-style absolutist talk and demonization.

This is what we have reaped. Bushiganda's "Conventional Wisdom" is so ingrained that even a third of DUers start the converstaion with huge chuncks of Bushiganda, which are mostly if not all bullshit anyway.

[paulsby]

47. there;'s a happy medium

i don't have a problem with having a higher marginal rate as income goes up

i certainly don't agree that anywhere near frigging 90% is justifiable, fair, or good policy.

i personally experience the disincentives and incentives of tax policy.

i chose to move to a state that does not have an income tax for instance. and once here, i started working more overtime. why? beccause i am not punished excessively by extreme tax rates like i was in the state that had income tax.

[blues90]

49. All we have done was be fooled and lulled into poverty

There were the insane Reagan Democrats who bought into this sales pitch. You can't leave out the shear ignorance of the public buying into the idea of box stores either , once they ate all the independant shops they raised the price of their Chinese made products placed on the backs of slave labor and the public looked the other way and bought right into this and NOW they claim to have grown a conscience yet they continue to fllod the box stores in search of a cheap price. There is no conscience in this , it is still shear ignorance and that goes for anyone who still claims they shop at wally world and like it and depend on it. Don't cry out when your damn job evaporates.

This entire mindset began to see it's bloom during Reagans years. It's not coal we shovel into the hells furnace (so to speak) it was our jobs now the fire cannot be put out and now we attempt to create new jobs for this fucked up 21st century and just what might these jobs be?

People talk about green jobs well guess what , any energy source will be bought up by those who have the money and that is the oil and energy corporations not the individual small business who has no way to compete.

Every single thing affects all other things and all is planned out under the radar.

We basically handed them all the power and control just as if we reached into our wallet and handed the robber the keys to our homes and passwords to our bank accounts.

I also do not like the use of the term progressive , this relates to progress which in a real sense got us here in the first place.

Now we are going to bail everyone out and reward them for their theft , that makes a lot of sense.

Then there are the people who complain about losing all their stock , well who decided to place their bets and roll the dice to make money off of money? It's as risky as gambling in Vegas and you knew it. It's the same thing as buying into the box stores and expect it not to bite you is the ass sooner of later.

Now we are here and no one really knows what to do about it other than to gamble once again and sit there and hope.

[Horse with no Name]

75. Don't forget the "Made in the USA" promises that Walmart made while

decimating Ma and Pa.
People actually thought they were being PATRIOTIC while they shopped there--and saving money at the same time.
Jigs up bay-bee.
They got hoodwinked. Now NOTHING in made in the USA and their prices are NOT that low.

[Bigmack]

51. The rich NEED to pay lots more taxes...

After all, they have a greater stake in the status quo and the present system, not to mention their greater wealth and possessions take more protection from those who would want to take them.

The entire weight of law and law enforcement is on their side if push comes to shove.

My repub neighbor hates government but he wants the best fire, EMT, and police protection there is. I tell him his waterfront property sure is attractive, and the tax he pays on it isn't a punishment, it's cheap insurance against somebody taking it from him or parking a garbage scow in front.

The guys who "earn" the big bucks? Only this peculiar system allows them to do that. They better pony up, because I know a some other systems that would cost them a whole lot more, and those systems would be a lot better for me.

[Politicalboi]

58. The rich have no one to blame but

Themselves. Like this hasn't happened before with Clinton. They live high on the hog while the Repuke is in office and think they won't have to pay something back. Then they yell and scream about socialism and taxes. They're just like the people who they complain about who bought homes when they knew they couldn't afford it. Under Bush they were living above their means or didn't they know that. Time to pay it back assholes.

[kestrel91316]

59. Unfortunately, we have a lot of LIBERTARIANS here who haven't

paid much attention to the fact that this is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[MrScorpio]

63. Soak the fucking rich

A 90% marginal tax rate seems fair

[dysfunctional press]

64. a LOT of them/us don't seem to understand marginal rates that well either...

they seem to think that the top tax rate is what the wealthy pay on ALL their income. and some of them also don't understand that for the uber-wealthy, a big part of their income is 'capital gains', NOT earned wages. :shrug:

[prole_for_peace]

69. I am a tax accountant in a CPA firm and very few of our corporate

clients pay any income tax. Even if they have income at the end of the year, rather than pay 35% on that income, they will pay "management fees" to the owner(s) which will be picked up on their personal tax returns. This results in a lower rate of taxes being paid, usually, due to losses on investments and itemized deductions.

I think it sucks and I am really tired of saving money for rich people.

And they DO NOT hire more people with any money they save. They just take it for themselves and build bigger houses and buy fancier cars (based on two clients that I have)

[Mike 03]

71. What would your taxation plan be?

I can't tell from your post whether I agree or not with your premise.

Who should be taxed and how much, in your opinion? And, also, why?

[kentuck]

74. I don't think tax rates have very much to do with production levels.

I think high tax rates can be defended as well as low tax rates. I remember when all the Repubs voted against the Clinton plan to raise taxes even a minimal amount. They said it would destroy our economy. Guess what? It was about the best economy we ever had. So I think the 39% was about ideal. However, the lower tax rates of the last 8 years have helped to create deficits that tear our economy down and stifle productivity. The 32% is obviously too low. I think we should raise the rate to about 46%, just to equalize the eight years at 32% and then, drop the rates back to 39%. That would be my plan.

[FLDCVADem]

77. For me, there is a point...

...at which I wouldn't take a payraise with the commensurate increase in responsibility, time and stress. Using kentuck's example of 42% (I'm not in the top bracket, but just using this as an example), if 47.75% (42% federal and 5.75% state) of every dollar I make is going to taxes, no way am I going to take the promotion. That's like working for half-price - my sanity and time with my family is worth more to me than bringing home a little more than half of what I would earn.

[DainBramaged]

73. We have been overrun by Reagan economics apologists

and children who listened too closely to ConservRative Talk radio when they lived at home.

[irislake]

81. Hopefully the present economic catastrophe

will re-educate them. However, when I think what a huge percentage of your taxes go to making war instead of providing health care I think I might want to rebel.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Wahhhhhhh Wahhhhhhh.

32% is fine, upt to 35%. More than 35% is just wrong. Deal with it.

[Evoman]

89. I disagree.

[mudesi]

84. Oh Boo Hoo

[treestar]

87. We ought to soak the rich, to pay off the deficit

They'll start over again. It's bullshit that they will be able to "punish" us by removing their incredible "talents" away. Because if they did that, they wouldn't get any attention and wouldn't have anybody to boss around. They're bluffing on that. There's no way they'd stomp off to the woods.

Besides the rest of us would not starve without them, as they seem to think.