Yet the effective rate was no different than now and the highest earners paid a smaller share of the tax burden, so you want to go back to that rate with the same credits and deductions? - - - Updated - - - Yes the lowest earners get the best breaks so the in fact many of them MAKE money of the tax system. - - - Updated - - - Has nothing to do with taxation, we don't tax wealth.
Using economies of scale to attempt to jusitfy your position is not logical, nor is it recongizeeable.
Are you people so ignorant of our tax system that you don't know we do not tax wealth in this country at the federal level? And guess what some of the higher income earners have little wealth why so of those with high wealth have little income. The younger/middle groups tend to have higher income but little wealth, they are raising kids and buying houses and spending lots of their income and then as they grow older and no kids and house paid off accumulate wealth to retire upon. WEALTH has nothing to do with taxation, just envy.
I find it hard to feel pity for folks who probably aren't having to worry about how they'll pay the bills or pay for any unexpected medical costs or pay for their children to go to school. I don't want to equalize income, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I should be outraged that people who make enough for a very comfortable existence pay a little bit extra tax than the people who struggle just to make ends meet. And lets not do that stupid pretending crap where we pretend that rich folks just work harder. I don't think there's any measurable relationship between how hard you work and how much money you make. Not saying these wealthier folks shouldn't be entitled to make more money if they can. Just that it's rather arrogant and pathetic if they expect the majority of the population who doesn't live in comfort to feel sorry for them. You're rich, enjoy the fruits of your labor/luck/family and quit your (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in!
Tax cuts are no "rewards". So what percent of the tax burden is the top 13% fair share and what is the fair share of the bottom 50%? You DO realize that after the Gingrich/Kaisch tax rate cuts and the Bush tax rate cuts the highest earners not only paid HUGE amounts more in revenue but also a higher share of the tax burden. What is your objection to that?
1. yes we do at time of death if the estate value is greater than 5.25 million. The estate tax is the oldest tax scheme first introduce in 1787, or thereabouts. 2. In the 1950's, individual taxes accounted for slightly over half of all federal reveneue with corporate taxation accountign for about a quarter, and the rest was excise and other taxes. Now, individual taxes account for about 70% of federal reveue with 15% corporate and mostly employment taxes while excise, estate and other taxes account for about 10%. 3. There are tax breaks for every tax bracket, tax entity, and structure. Entites and taxpeyrs who own real or person property can bet special tax breaks such as 1031 exchange, 121 exclusion, or non cash deductions as depreciation. Corporations have speical deductions for dividendes recreived that can be excluded from 70% to 100%. The wealth taxpayers can uses the rules for foreign trusts and trust intruments to hide or protect such investment. And lower income persons have personal tax credits that cah help alleviate poverty. All in all, it is ludirous to say that only the lowe incomes have all the great tax breaks while there are tax breaks for about every situation you can think of.
It's called the estate tax Bluesguy. Geez. But wealth can play a part in your taxation strategy of how much or how little you can pay such taxes. Thsi is called using tax avoidance schemes.
It makes me feel warm and fuzzy to pay ridiculous amounts in taxes so that illegal Mayans can get tax credits/payments for their nieces and nephews back in Guatemala.
No they remained Democrats after they lost their Dixiecrat campaign and were all reelected as Democrats and held high positions as Democrats. It was the Democrats who had to join the Republicans to get civil rights legislation passed.
WE DON'T TAX WEALTH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL............what don't you people understand? My mother had her highest wealth when she only had Social Security income. She and my father had their highest income when they had little wealth. My wife and I have sacrificed and saved and lived responsibly all our lives and are in the top 15% of wealth as opposed to those who made the same as we did and have little to nothing saved, no wealth. Why should we bear a higher income tax burden because we were more responsible? - - - Updated - - - Nope. There is no federal property tax.
1% of the world's population controls nearly half of the planet's total wealth ... $110 trillion. If this wealth was redistributed to every man, woman and child...globally, who represent the remaning 99%. We'd each get a check for around $15,500. Is that really going to change your life? Maybe a nice down payment on a car, maybe some nice toys. 15.5 grand is not going to change your life. After it's gone? Guess what, no more 1% to complain about, their entire wealth has been justly redistributed to every global citizen who represents the other 99%. True wealth distribution is not a solution to anything.
That was said in 1910, lets put things in perspective. In 1910 US federal spending as percentage of GDP was 7.95%. Using 2013 GDP that would be $1.29 Trillion. Federal revenues in 2013 were $2.8 Trillion. Which means if spending was the same as percentage as 1910 the federal government could return 1.51 trillion without fear of a deficit. That would be around $13,000 per household. We would not even have to discuss who to raise taxes on. But today federal government is around 21% of GDP, all levels of government spend about 40% of GDP. To not go into debt at all they would have to take 40% of everything produced in the US in a year... We are far removed from 1910...
Not as in income tax and that is on an estate not alive paying taxpayers and should be abolished anyway. This discussion is about active alive taxpayers. And? Your point being? Didn't say all, but when the tax breaks you get mean you profit off the system as the lowest incomes do while the highest are paying a disproportionate share..............
I'm sick and tired of paying for those that think they're well off. The people that are in the bracket between the top 5 and top 10 percent. Those of us in the top 1% have had taxes increase 6 fold since 1980, while this less successful group has only had their tax contributions go up by half that...
This is why I said it was an approximation. True as far as it goes, but the correlation is quite high, because wealth tends to produce income in the form of interest and dividends. Again, except that wealth generally produces taxable income. And if you read carefully, you find that we're talking about the top 13% of income earners. In this category, you don't tend to find hand-to-mouth young people struggling to pay the bills. So the dispute here isn't over how much people are making to pay taxes, it's over the whole concept of progressive taxation - something strongly favored by those making relatively little, and strongly opposed by those making a lot. I would say the correlation between income and opposition to progressive taxation would be very high.
Then why has the South been dominated by Republican politics ever since the civil rights era? Just calling it by what it is. People don't change that quick, but their party ID does.
last I checked, Mexico was 98% Christian.... another 2% and God is gonna pave their roads with gold.. then they can pay us back .
The shift was NOT overnight and had nothing to do with the civil rights battles, why would the segregationist run to the party that supported desegregation and beat them on the issue?
I notice that this chart is strictly income tax. Most significantly, this does NOT include sales taxes. Where I live, the sales tax is 9%, which I would have to pay even if I owed no income taxes. And it should be pretty obvious that people who have to spend every penny they can earn, pay 9% of their income in taxes at minimum. That doesn't include excise taxes for such things as alcohol or gasoline, and even for poor people gasoline is unavoidable. Do you suppose you could find such a chart that includes ALL taxes, of all kinds at every level of government? I predict you'd find it much less progressive.
Because our current tax code is what it is, low wage earners are the ones who suffer most. If someone making 50K is only allowed to keep 40K (or less) they have far less money to work with than someone who's earning 150K and allowed to keep 110K. That's just reality. Of course democrat's will use the populist approach and argue that the rich (the winners of life's lottery) need to pay more, but that doesn't help the low wage earners situation one bit. In fact, is all taking more money out the private sector does is reduce the supply of private capital while enabling politicians to increase their power by manipulating the financial resources it takes in. Bottom line, nobody but DC wins under the current tax code and until it's replaced the arguments revolving around rates, what's fair/unfair will be rehashed over and over and nothing will change for the better.
The history of this change is well documented, if you cared to read it. In a nutshell, the Southern Democrats found that overall, their interests were right in line with the Northern Republicans, which meant they were voting overwhelmingly with the Republicans in Congress. Changing their ideology was out of the question, so they changed their labels. Even Southerners aren't so stupid they can't listen to speeches or read platforms.
