I Want You to Pay 80% Tax, Bill O'Reilly !

If his home, family and bills put his finances out of reach of an 80% tax rate, then he's overspending.

 

Yeah, he pays some state taxes, but in some states (like hear in Florida) they pay no state tax at all. Forget about those did we ?

As for > "Why should anyone have to pay more money to the government than they get to keep?", answer to that is in Post # 23. It's called National Security - something that was valued very highly by a REAL CONSERVATIVE, ex-president Dwight D. Eisenhower, and was that way until the phony conservative Ronald Reagan came along and changed the whole definition of a conservative into something screwball.

 

The tax shelters and deductions in the 50's were much more generous. Even if Romney is putting his money into foreign locations, he is paying taxes on it. It's extremely difficult to avoid taxes, unless you are politically well connected and can get a cabinet level appointment.

How many people were earning $400,000 in 1951? Certainly it was a small fraction of 1% of all earners in the US. That's $3.8 million today.

You're the professor. You appealed to your authority. Put it on the line.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU"]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]

[/quote]

Yes. They are unproductive, or, even worse, they frequently lead to the inhibition of private sector production. However, as an economics professor, perhaps you can answer this question: Why is it economically more beneficial to give someone a government job in order that they may spend money, rather than just give them the same amount of money without the job requirement?

 

Maybe you should get a job and start paying taxes again if you are so worried about government funding.

It'd be a lot more productive than trying to take more from others.

 

If he is making over $343,927/year THAT is theft, but not so much as guys like Mark Zuckerberg with his $2 Billion/year income and what some multimillionaire business owner rake in (while paying their workers minimum wage) - THAT is theft, and you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating it, without a taxation level appropriate to offset it.

As for the right ? See post # 23.

 

Crony capitalism is how they got rich. Eliminate that.

 

Who is he stealing from?

 

Did I say I didn't have a job ? As for taking "more" as you call it, No, that's not quite correct. The amount I suggested is close to the 70% level, which is the lowest tax rates on the top brackets for most of the past 95 years. I advocated 80%. That's about the same as the 70-94% that the rate was over that period. It's not taking more. It's RESTORING the NORMAL taxation of the USA.

 

Who do you think ? Are you that blindly programmed ? From his low wage workers, of course.

 

If you expect any American to make 300k and then recieve only 70k out of it then you are a supporter of the worst Government tyranny imaginable.

Get it through your thick skulls we are never, ever going to allow the Economic Regressives to take us back to the success punishing Pre-Reagan tax rates. Never.

 

So he is rounding people up and forcing them to work there for lower wages than they would otherwise work for?

 

Yes. They are unproductive, or, even worse, they frequently lead to the inhibition of private sector production. However, as an economics professor, perhaps you can answer this question: Why is it economically more beneficial to give someone a government job in order that they may spend money, rather than just give them the same amount of money without the job requirement?[/QUOTE]

FALSE ! The 50's more shelters/deductions rap has been worn out for years now. REJECTED. Come up with a new one.

I don't care why Kennedy reduced taxes. Fact simply is as long as taxes are raised with (of course) loopholes being closed (and continually monitored), this created job growth and GDP growth. Want a theory as to why Kennedy may have reduced taxes ? To help himself get re-elected. Ever hear of politicians doing that ?

As for > "Why is it economically more beneficial to give someone a government job in order that they may spend money, rather than just give them the same amount of money without the job requirement?" Are you saying stimulus checks are just as good as the creation of government jobs ?

 

So you are a Psuedo-Conservative from the Reagan era, and I am A REAL CONSERVATIVE from the Eisenhower era. SO you believe that National Security including a strong military, ICE and CBP agents, immigration courts and jails, federal and state prisons, infrastructure repairs, defense against Islamist terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood, and 1000 other things should all be minimized (if not scratched) just to keep super rich greed freaks in their pathological pampered lifestyles.

To contrast the difference between Reagan's small government psuedo-conservatism, and Ike's REAL Conservatism, is as easy as just comparing the 2 presidents themselves. After Ike chased a million illegal alien invaders back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954, Reagan gave them amnesty 12 years later. And his buddy Gingrich wants to do it again now.

And when Ike was trudging his way through Germany in 1944/1945 as supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, your great hero, Rich Ronnie boy, was in Hollywood making movies about it.

 

ewwww..

Ike wasn't a Conservative. He was a member of the "liberal wing" of the GOP. I"m glad we crushed those fools out of the party with Nixon.

 

Doesn't matter. Any way you turn it, he's underpaying them. That's HIS choice and as such, he's ripping them off.

 

In philosophical terms the other workers and people who contribute to the eventual seccuef of teh company

 

WRONG ! IKE wasn't a Conservative only ACCORDING TO YOUR 1980S+ MENTALITY OF WHAT A CONSERVATIVE IS. Which is flat out irrelevant, since you young people have no clue as to what Conservatism really means.

HERE is what it really means >>> It is conserving the lifestyle, language, borders, culture of America, and protecting it and ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE from all enemies like invading illegal aliens (who your low budgeting allows in), from the uncivilized, barbaric savages of the radical Muslims, the Iranians, and whoever else.

Your trip is nothing more than protecting a relatively small group of spoiled brat multimillionaires from taxation. That's NOT CONSERVATISM. That is GREEDISM.

I can see they've got YOU programmed.

 

They are paying them what they are willing to work for. It's not like they get to arbitrarily determine their wages. Their wages are determined by market forces just like the price of any other good.

Man you have an apt name. You seem to embody the worst aspects of both sides. You embrace the zero sum economic thinking and class warfare of the progressive movement and the nationalism and xenophobia of some of the right. Bravo!

 

Prevent people like you from taking an unfair amount.

 

Yes, I'm a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tool and you can't do (*)(*)(*)(*) to change the tax rates because even Democrats won't touch those rates! So you're just stuck with it. The best you'll get a marginal rate hike of 3 or 4 points.

You have zero right to inflict a lower middle class quality of life on a person who earns much more than that!

If rates did get that high I would hope that there are loopholes so big you can drive a semi truck through and I would hide virtually every cent I made offshore.

 

If rates get that high without loopholes, this country will suffer the fate of Zimbawbee. Everyone will with money will flee and the people will starve in the streets. And they will deserve all the suffering they bring upon themselves.

 

For a man who claims to be a economics teacher, you don't understand PROGRESSIVE TAX rates.

Here is the history of PROGRESSIVE TAX rates in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income...ical_income_tax_rates_.281913.E2.80.932010.29

Your calculation of a person earing $343,927, having $68,785 left is WRONG!

You assume that the 80% is applied to the ENTIRE $343,927, it id not applied to the entire earnings. It is applied to earnings OVER a certain tax band.

LOWER percentages are applied to other tax bands.

Really, this is infacnt school level maths.


For example in 1948:
>$10,001 - 38%
>$20,001 - 56%
>$60,001 - 78%
>$100,001 - 89%
>$250,001 - 91%

Agreeing with the actual %ages is not the point, the point is the lack of understanding as to how progressive taxation actually works.

But no doubt the righties here have failed to want to see and understand this.

 

Herein lies the question. The US has never had a flat tax rate, therefore the numbers provided by the OP are simply rubbish. Anyone who's actually ever completed an income tax return works, knows this.

 

Sorry, 23%.

 

This tax rate system we have has always been filled with special loopholes for the friends of the politicians that help keep them up and their competition down. Our Tax system is nothing more than a scam since Woodrow Wilson started it.