LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

how fair taxing of billionaires reaps rewards for communities... Mass. seeing over $800M more than expected with 3 months still to go

MajorRewrite said:
A moment ago, you argued that the rich don’t pay taxes so raising taxes on them is irrelevant.

Now, faced with facts, you say the rich do pay taxes and are in fact paying too much!

😄 Twisting yourself in knots like that is going to hurt your back.

The truth is: the rich do pay taxes and raising the top marginal tax rate does increase revenue.
Click to expand...
TastySuckToy is trying to explain why policies he does not like will not work.
 
TastySuckToy said:
I absolutely concede the argument, the rich do indeed pay taxes and pay far more than their fair share, as proven by your source. 😃
Click to expand...
If the rich already "pay far more than their far share," why do they have so much left over? It does not seem that they are being ruined by taxation.
 
TastySuckToy said:
I've totally conceded the arguement to MajorRewrite. The upper level of income earners pay taxes and far more than their fair share of them. 😃
Click to expand...

Thank you for stopping your barrage of nonsense, but “fair” is subjective of course. I believe that each should pay according to their ability.
 
JohnEngelman said:
If the rich already "pay far more than their far share," why do they have so much left over? It does not seem that they are being ruined by taxation.
Click to expand...
I'm not one to tell other people how much money they should be 'allowed' to have.

If they're putting vastly more into the system than everyone else, as proven by MajorRewrite's source, then they are already above and beyond everyone else contributing to taxation.

Makes perfect sense why Trump would advocate for giving them a tax break, since they're already putting in far more than their fair share.
 
MajorRewrite said:
It definitely was a barrage of nonsense, but at no point were you trying to “channel leftist/democrat talking points”.

Give up while you’re behind.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's a Rightwing position that the rich pay no or little tax? Could've sworn the Rightwing position was that the rich pay too much tax and should get tax breaks, hence their interest in voting for Trump for tax cuts.

Thanks for clarifying that Trump's desire to cut taxes for the rich is a leftist/democrat position. I stand corrected again. 😄
 
TastySuckToy said:
So the top 1% pay almost half of all federal income taxes.

And I thought the argument was the rich don't pay their fair share, but the actual evidence shows they pay vastly more than their fair share. How interesting.
Click to expand...
In the United States the overall tax system is mildly progressive.

TaxPercentage.png

Economic inequality has reached levels not seen since right before the stock market crash of 1929.

inequalityCATO.jpg
 
When considering the distribution of taxes we need to consider the growth of inequality in the United States. The following article was written in 2010, but I doubt things have changed significantly.

-----------

Business Insider

15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America​

Gus Lubin
Apr 9, 2010, 10:33 AM EDT

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties​


Half of America has 2.5% of the wealth​


The last two decades were great...if you were a CEO or owner. Not if you were anyone else.​


Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years​


Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the wealth gap​


Meanwhile, income tax is getting lower and lower for the rich​


America spreads its wealth FAR LESS than other developed countries​


America's income spread is nearly twice the OECD average​


The income gap is NOT growing in other countries, like France​


If you aren't in the top 1%, then you're getting a bum deal​


Normalized to 1979, the top 1% have seen their share of America's income more than double. The bottom 90% have seen their portion shrink.

Source: Afferent Input

https://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4


 
This is who pays the taxes;

  • The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.
  • The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.
If 45.8% isn't fair enough, what is?
 
The problem with a lot of discussion around wealth and taxes is that it focuses on relative outcomes. If one group does ok and another group does a bit better than ok and a smaller group does really, really well, the first two groups think they are doing terrible and getting a raw deal by comparison.

But that presents a distorted picture. How many tech billionaires have skewed the results in the last few decades? If someone with a genius idea mortgaged his/her house and poured a decade into a risky venture while taking no income strikes it rich he/she is going to have an outsized net worth by comparison to the rest of society. They should pay their taxes including whatever they owe in a progressive system. But they don't owe any of their wealth to the person who chose to take a more stable and predictable route. If their risk and genius and hardworking leads to them being worth 1,000x more than the average person, the fact that that is out of proportion with historical trends doesn't mean that person owes his/her wealth back to society. Giving back and sharing the wealth both through charity and being a generous employer would be the right thing to do. And if that person uses their position of power in an unfair way to further enrich themselves then there is a case for regulating, taxing, etc. to address that behaviour. But just seizing their wealth or making them the villain for having succeeded is misguided, unfair and will suppress wealth creation making everyone worse off.

If the individual who took the stable route was perfectly happy with their compensation until they saw the tech billionaire get rich, in principle nothing should change. But it does. It is human nature that he/she feels poorer because someone else got richer. And there is always someone there with an agenda to tell that person that they are hard done by and that the billionaire got where he did through luck or oppressing the little guy so the government should take his money and redistribute it.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that are issues of inequality. But that should be measured by inequality of opportunity and unfair use of power/authority to compress wages for the lower classes.....not by inequality of outcomes. In a few decades we will look back and realize that one of the great errors of the current age is to equate equality of outcomes with equal treatment. Forcing everyone towards the same outcomes so that everyone feels just as well off by comparison is a very bad idea.
 
I think that in general when we look at developed countries there is an inverse relationship between economic dynamism and income inequality.

The U.S. is arguably the most economically dynamic economy in the world yet it has some of the highest rates of income inequality. The fact that the U.S. celebrates economic success and provides an environment where people can get filthy rich is part of what encourages risk taking and innovation. The people who lead the way on those things would be much less inclined to do so if excessive regulation gets in the way or if governments and society regard their success as evidence of wrong doing and their wealth as something to be seized. Even those who are generous and want to give to society see big difference between giving back and giving to government's for their pet projects and generally inefficient use of funds.

But that success doesn't all come from hard work, risk and altruistic means. Some if it is a product of luck, opportunity and ruthless behaviour. So measures are required to level the playing field and support the less well off. Unfortunately, those measures tend to be aimed directly at undermining the very things that make for a dynamic economy. As I noted before there is a big difference between wealth and income and how we come into possession of either. A CEO who got his MBA at the most prestigious schools and is tied in with all the right people (but takes no real personal risk) is very different from the entrepreneur who bets it all, takes modest income but becomes wealthy through the rise in the stock price of the company that he/she created. The former is paid a lot from somebody else's bucket. The latter created the bucket and brought everyone along for the ride.

All of that implies that there is a balance. Governments that seek to exercise too much control (and remember they tend to be inefficient entities that make a lot of bad decisions) will kill economic dynamism to everyone's detriment. Those that don't exercise any control will not protect the vulnerable or provide any kind of equality of opportunity. But like it or not those things are somewhat opposing forces.
 
Chobham said:
This is who pays the taxes;

  • The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.
  • The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.
If 45.8% isn't fair enough, what is?
Click to expand...
The overall tax system is only mildly progressive.


taxPercentage 5.png

on the other hand, inequality has reached levels not seen since 1929.


inequality 2.png
 
policywank said:
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that are issues of inequality. But that should be measured by inequality of opportunity and unfair use of power/authority to compress wages for the lower classes.....not by inequality of outcomes.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not everyone can be a super star, sports star, singer, rich, famous, etc. There will always be a spectrum of people across any particular metrics.

It's a ridiculous notion to think anyone is entitled to a 'fair share' of someone else's stuff, whether it be time, money, property, talent, work, etc.

Instead of bitching and whining about the success of others and demanding to take from them, focus on your own success, happiness and quit measuring it against others.
 
TastySuckToy said:
Exactly. Not everyone can be a super star, sports star, singer, rich, famous, etc. There will always be a spectrum of people across any particular metrics.

It's a ridiculous notion to think anyone is entitled to a 'fair share' of someone else's stuff, whether it be time, money, property, talent, work, etc.

Instead of bitching and whining about the success of others and demanding to take from them, focus on your own success, happiness and quit measuring it against others.
Click to expand...
Beyond a certain point I see little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income. What matters is being born with rich parents, rare and valuable talents, and a few lucky breaks.
 
JohnEngelman said:
The overall tax system is only mildly progressive.


View attachment 2351698

on the other hand, inequality has reached levels not seen since 1929.


View attachment 2351711
Click to expand...
Money talks, tax rates walk. It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected and reduces economic activity.

"I want you should kill Igor's goat." Envy is ugly no matter what is used as a justification.
 
MajorRewrite said:
Gonna need a link to proof that higher taxes on the top earners result in less revenue collected and reduced economic activity.

Reagan, Bush and Trump reduced the top marginal tax rates and the result was big budget deficits in each instance.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ly-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
Click to expand...
Yup, revenues went up and congress figured out a way to spend even more.

So what do the Communist "Progressives" intend to do with all the money they dream they're going to collect? You can bet your ass that not a single dime is going to go to reduce the debt. They'll figure out a way to send super freighters loaded with cash to foreign nations we really don't care about. Truckloads to the illegal cockroaches infesting every corner of this nation, and God only knows what else they'll waste the money on. And even then they'll demand more because the money grubbing little bastards can NEVER get their hands on enough of other peoples money.

On of the wisest summation of taxes was written by P J O'Rourke, "Giving a politician more money is like handing your teenage son a bottle of whiskey and the keys to the family car."
 
Chobham said:
Money talks, tax rates walk. It's been proven time and time again, higher tax rates result in less revenue collected and reduces economic activity.
Click to expand...
In 1936 the top tax rate rose from 63% to 79%. Income tax receipts rose from $527.0 million to 719.0 million.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/

These numbers are not adjusted for inflation, or deflation - which occurred during the Great Depression - so they are only meaningful on a year to year basis.

In 1940 the top tax rate rose from 79% to 81%. Income tax receipts declined from $1,029 million to 892.0, but grew to $1,314.0 million in in 1941.

In 1942 the top tax rate rose from 81% to 88%. Income tax receipts rose from $1,314,0 million to $3,263.0 million.

In 1944 the top tax rate rose from 88% to 94%. Income tax receipts rose from $6,505.0 million to $19,705 million.

Republican economic beliefs are more frequently based on what Republicans want to believe, than on what can be proved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SusanJillParker
  • Locked
Wow! They rejected my story, an essay, actually. What happened to freedom of speech?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
AwkwardlySet
AwkwardlySet
Back
Top