The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Links. You're making a claim, yet you're not backing it up. At all. You're also totally ignoring how your point has any weight at all, considering that the revenues to the Treasury are nearly completely comprised of earnings from the top 10%.

 

Your surrender is accepted

 

And garner the greatest benefit from this society. There is a cost to that

 

Perhaps you should focus on other issues. Issues like the inherent mathematical bias against low wage earners. This is from memory, so if you wish to challenge the fundamentals within the math I am about to cite, please do so.

In 1924, there was a total of 4.3 billion dollars in circulation - and the 'wealth gap' between the richest and poorest was about a billion dollars (I believe it was about then that the first billionaire sprung into existence, but it may have actually been later).

Today - as of March '15, IIRC - the total US currency in circulation is 3.2 TRILLION. The wealth gap?

Poorest is still zero: worse, actually, as the creation of debt vehicles like credit cards allow someone to fall well below 'zero'. The wealthiest? Well: we have not yet created our first Trillionaire, but it is simply a matter of time.

You babble about the 'wealth gap', but you ignore the reality which takes place when you inflate currency. Not only does my anecdote about the wealth gap illustrate it as a canard, it doesn't even begin to consider that those who do not have money to invest AUTOMATICALLY lose 4% of their 'wealth' annually, as the system is BUILT to inflate the currency by that amount annually.

To encourage investment. The system is truly rigged, but - like a typical leftist - you're looking in the wrong place to cast blame. Government has exploded in size since your chart diverged.

And you think it's because of taxes that the poor are being screwed. Silly liberal.

 

My proposals in no particular order:
1. Defund and decentralize all federal functions back to the states other than defense, civil rights adjudication, disputes between states, limited and streamlined environmental regulations, strictly limited affairs of state/treaties, and the regulation of -strictly interpreted- interstate commerce. This would make the state the primary tax and governing site, and states could compete for business and individuals with tax policy. People could vote with their feet to leave unjust taxing states. But for the most part, the United States will become a "holding company" for the military and not a whole lot else.
2. Remove a large percentage of state government to local county and city government. State constitutions redrafted to enumerate state functions strictly and turn everything else over to LOCAL government that can be held accountable by the people.
3. Reduce congressional pay to $50,000, a staff of 3, a term of 60 days twice a year, terms of 4 years in each house, term limits of two terms, prohibition of employment in any federal contractor or lobby after serving, cap on soft dollar compensation such as speaking fees and book sales. Similar limits imposed on state politicians.
4. Abolish public unions at every level of government. Strict wage and benefit caps on government and government funded educational workers at 50-75% of equivalent privates sector pay and benefits. No COLA, no pensions, no bargaining, collective or otherwise.
5. Income taxation and especially tax withholding will be made illegal, all taxation will be via sales and flat taxes. People can become wards of the state and have their needs taken care of by renouncing their right to vote and citizenship, moving into government compounds where basic needs of survival are provided. No moving back out though.

There's a good start.

 

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a written record of ANY discussion with a leftist.

You were utterly schooled on the "Reagan Tax Cuts" in writing for all to see. I'm sure OP appreciates your numerous substanceless troll-bumps though, so the thread wasn't quite a -total- failure for you.

 

Actually YOU were shown to be completely wrong there. The record is ON this thread.

I stated that Reagan

Raised taxes on the middle class and poor (he did through payroll taxes)
Cut the top tax rate in HALF (that is clearly a matter of fact)
Tripled the deficit (also pure fact)

And I even went to the trouble of documenting all of that so you couldn't make these asinine claims.

So explain this "utter schooling".

 

This insane nonsense would bankrupt EVERY state...and cause a massive Depression.

Wonderful otherwise though huh?

 

RIGHT.
Like Trump's kids earned it.
Like Mnuchen earned it - Foreclosing on homes.
Like Tom Price - insider trading.
Like Wilbur Ross - laundering money as vice-chairman of Bank of Cyprus

 

Wrong as usual, what it would do is disassemble the most harmful aspects of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex that are threatening the future of this country. Thanks for the block quote though!

 

Wrong? Care to explain how already cash strapped states could absorb ANY of that stupidity?

Care to tell us wht that reduction of spending would do to the economy or hadn't you considered that?

 

Oh, thanks for the reason to repeat my coup de grace post. I do so love seeing my winning words in print! Oh, and you hopped onboard the losing "wealth = concrete" train, so that's THREE ways you were schooled in this thread irrefutably. You never backed your claim that Reagan raised taxes on the middle class (he didn't), so that's actually four large errors. Do you EVER get tired of being wrong and losing? What is it, masochistic tendencies?

You posted 1. That Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy 50%, 2. That tax revenues nosedived as a result, 3. That Reagan raised taxes on the middle and lower class.

The below link utterly disproves 1 and 2 from a LW source of well-known federal revenue. Tax revenues reflect NO cut to taxes and DID NOT nosedive. I disproved "3" in an earlier post, and also "4" about the abstraction "wealth" as well.

 

Oh taxes are not the only factor, of course not. We understand that but each fight has it's place and time.
Since the government is supposed to protect it's citizens it should not be making policy that harms one segment, in this case the middle class that was to the benefit of another, the uber rich. It's policies should be neutral or skewed in favor of the masses not the few.

 

"Oh, one other thing, since the 1986 IRC Reform has been the law for over 30 years now, and through two 8 year Democrat Administrations who had ample opportunity to repeal it, calling it "Reagan Tax Cuts" is a lie in yet another way. "

Bush Sr. did raise taxes on the richest. Bill Clinton raised them again until a balanced budget was achieved. Junior returned to them and brought about the first $tillion deficit. Obama came in and took two years to reverse the economy and then tried to raise the taxes on the uber rich again but unfortunately he had an uncooperative, to say the least, congress.

Trump's plan can't really be called that, Seriously, I did a longer detailed report on the Communist Manifesto when I was in 6th grade.

 

Not if you consider all revenues and all expenses. It's pretty easy to Google "All federal Revenues" and the US Budget. I've found that if I give such links rather than people reading them they come back with links like we're seeing plenty of here that cherry pick to come up with the numbers you just cited.
ALL revenues and ALL expenses. Then go to the IRS and see how much each economic group pays.

 

1. The IRC Tax Reform of 1986 has been US tax policy for over 30 years now, through two Democrat Administrations that controlled the WH and Congress and could have repealed all or parts of it. They did not. The preceding is irrefutable fact, not opinion.
2. Calling policy that has been in place for over 30 years "Reagan Tax Cuts" is misleading and dishonest. It would be just as dishonest as "FDR's Social Security" or "LBJ's Medicare."

No idea what point you are attempting in the garble above, my point, OTOH is crystal clear and stands as not refuted in any way.

 

Regardless, they still pay more taxes.... more than their fair share.

 

We get our heads "wrapped around" a lot of things - first and foremost is an upper-income taxation system that was made flagrantly ridiculous by Ray-gun's ignominious tax-rate cuts in the 1980s:

 

Piffle 'n drivel.

Sarcasm is not even an excuse of a response such as yours ...

 

Yeah, no, practice what you preach. I made a very long, directly responsive post to your (6th grade level grammar and construction) post, which you simply ignored all the many points of you couldn't answer, and then seized on the "war" thing that one of my posts already dealt with very clearly in its link.

Remember folks, ALWAYS have a written record of ANY attempted discussion with a leftist.

 

More claptrap for the American masses?

Without unions, pay-scales would be even worse in the US ...

 

I typically ignore drivel.

Any other complaints ... ?

 

The question is what is the reason for the widening wealth gap? A strong case can be made that increased government power, either through regulations or tax rates, drives wealth to the top 0.1% due to their ability to use government to their advantage. Look at recent results in the USA. The largest expansion of the wealth gap came under Obama. The same time we increased regulations by the most in history.

 

Average per administration would seem to me to be less important than whether it increased or decreased.

 

I suggest we just take it as a "given" irrespective of any particular administration.

People want a "good job forever", which is understandable. But, that just aint gonna happin in any market-economy on earth. It's a nice goal to keep in mind, but long-term it depends much more on the vagaries of Consumer Demand.

Nobody "expected" the Great Recession, and it happened because of banksters looking for a Quick Megabuck (by issuing helter-skelter mortgages).

PS: The Chinese are just beginning to understand that lesson ...