The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

You are aware of the fact that I am very far from being an idiot, and certainly much, much farther than you.

It wasn't a description, it was puerile name calling, and you know it.

 

Reference to 2021’s 40-year record high capital gains realization, we have a member on this site who keeps reminding us, or reminding himself that after Gingrich & Co. lowered the capital gains tax rates, it generated billions in new revenue

Well, he’s right, but ironically, in 2021, and without lowering the cap gains rate, we had a 40-year record high of capital gains realization.

Thus, attention Republicans and Democrats; You folks don’t need to play Yoyo with the Capital Gains tax rates, leave rates unchanged, and let the market decide.

Last, this is not an opinion, simply common sense.

 

Reference to the top 1%, I stated my point…..

Their 2021’s share of income tax, 46%, and average tax rate of 26% ARE FAIR, and if they were to come down, then it would also be fair to raise them up.

What else you want me say?

 

“Biden wants to raise taxes, but doesn’t want to fix the debt”


You do know that the Constitution gave Congress the power to fix the debt, right?

 

Don’t be intentionally dense. Although your candidate doesn’t have the grey matter left to lead a policy initiative.

 

In the 90’s, Congress kept Clinton’s spending requests below inflation + population growth rates, thus, below an increase of 3.5%, both Mandatory and discretionary.

Today’s Congress could do the same, thus, below 3.5% +’0.5%.

 

Not with a two seat majority in the House and Democrats controlling the Senate. The Democrats have near perfect party discipline. They didn’t have that in the 1990s. Clinton has brains; Biden is senile.

If you want conditions to get better, elect the Republicans, including Trump, and hope. The Republicans are not trustworthy; the Democrats are 100% spendthrifts.

 

Proving my point thank you. You said only the land owners profit, well the only landowners who profited from the bridge are those who sold the land on each side of the river.

LOTS of people gain a convenience by the bridge. Some will even see the traffic flow as a possible source of customers for various services and invest their money into a business. LOTS of those people own not a square foot of land.

Or less so if you valuable privacy and a quiet neighborhood and you ignore the fact that all the people living there property own or not benefits from being able to cross the river there instead of having to drive miles up or down stream to find a crossing and that all the people driving through on their way to farther away destinations benefit from that bridge being there saving them dollars in gas and time which of course is money.

As I said what a strange economic theory to state that only those who had a property interest in there bridge benefit from it economically.

I don't pay any landowners to use public roads, sorry don't know where you got that idea. I certainly don't sit out on my front yard and collect tolls of people going up and down it.

Wait a minute they pay someone in their town to use the bridge in your town and the person in their town sends the person in your town the money? You are making no sense. It someone is charging someone to cross a bridge they do so AT THE BRIDGE when they cross, you don't bank it in your home town. Next time you get on a tollway just try to tell them you already paid back in your hometown.

YES and what is the fair market value they add to their rent to cross the bridge? Do they do it by trip or is there just a flat monthly fee? I didn't even know a private citizen could simple charge you to use public roads and bridges are your sure the state allows you to charge such tolls?

But you admitted everyone gets a benefit. So what do we need to do to get this bridge justice for everyone?

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.

How about repealing the 17th and giving the States back their voice in the Congress and the state legislatures can start taking back their constitutional duties and get the federal government back in it's constitutionally authorized duties?

So your progressiveness would be aimed at getting the 75% who pay little to go back to say the effective rates they paid in the past?

Biden says his new taxes would only affect the top 1% and not be very much..............

 

His budgets especially after his failed tax increase were DOA. He was the only modern President to request MORE spending each year than Congress authorized. And of course his infamous Dick Morris "triangulate" else face losing reelection and Gingrich and Kasich controlled the budget and he went along as with their CapGains rate cut which got those revenues back on track and welfare reform and spending restraint and some regulatory easing for a more pro-growth government.

Here's how they did it, grow the economy, thus the tax base, faster than the government. Revenues and spending will come back into alignment. Bush43 and the Rep Congress has us on the verge once again after the 2001 recession/dot.com bust/9-11 attack bringing the peak deficit of $400B, my what we would give for that right now, down to a paltry $161B and then the Dems took back the Congress Jan. 2007.

What happened after that?

 

The "description" that I provided was ... "This is a discussion of income tax burden by income, and you are arguing to end income taxes altogether. You are arguing oranges in a discussion about apples. Not interested. I prefer reality-based discussions."

It would be nice if you simply moved along. I am not looking to bicker endlessly about this, but you just refuse to go away. If someone doesn't engage with your topic, you cannot make them do so.

Go away.

Not interested.

Sorry.

 

So putting this in context context, your answer to "why they are fair?" is "they ARE fair".

How delightfully insightful. Thanks for that.

 

Try posting legit numbers from credible sources with links.

 

No it wasn't. It was "arguing with you is like arguing with the village idiot."

Despicable.

 

Yeesh.

My exact words in question were "I can and will repeat it or any of the other similar descriptions I have already provided if you insist, but hopefully, you will just move on."

You said that it "was not a description". I correctly pointed out to you that the description that I referred to was me saying " "This is a discussion of income tax burden by income, and you are arguing to end income taxes altogether. You are arguing oranges in a discussion about apples. Not interested. I prefer reality-based discussions."

I understand that you are now wanting to focus upon the village idiot comment, but it was me that said I provided you with a description, and as you can see, my words ARE a description. Just because you can point to some words from me that are not a description, does not therefore mean that I did not provide a description.

Once again...

It would be nice if you simply moved along. I am not looking to bicker endlessly about this, but you just refuse to go away. If someone doesn't engage with your topic, you cannot make them do so.

Go away.

Not interested.

Sorry.

 

False, as already proved several times: anyone who owns land that is made more desirable by the bridge is getting a subsidy paid for by the taxes that were used to build the bridge.

But they have to pay landowners full market value for permission to access that convenience, as I have already explained to you, very patiently, several times, in clear, simple, grammatical English.

And if they want to get any of that benefit, they have to pay a landowner full market value for permission to access it.

Any individual preference is irrelevant to the fact that the land is made more valuable by the bridge, and the value is merely attenuated by distance. If you own a painting that you don't happen to like, and the market doubles its value, the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant to the fact that the market enriched you.

That's not what I said, and you know it. I stated the fact that those who own the LAND that is made more desirable by the bridge are the only ones who benefit.

Then you are a landowner, and you are engaging in all this disingenuous song and dance merely because you want to keep pocketing the landowner subsidy. Simple.

The indisputable facts of economics.

You paid the "toll" to the landowner in advance when you rented or bought the land.

No, the people who don't own the land have to pay the people who do own the land for permission to use the bridge the land provides access to. Not rocket science.

Nope. The landowner charges the user for permission to use the bridge when they pay the rental or purchase price of the land.

The fact that you already paid the landowner for permission to access the tollway doesn't affect the toll -- although the toll does reduce the amount the landowner can charge you for permission to access it.

GET IT???

Whatever the market says.

It increases the periodic rent.

It's not a toll. It's a periodic fee for permission to access ALL desirable public services and infrastructure accessible from that location.

No, that is false. I stated the fact that only landowners benefit.

Require landowners to repay the subsidy they get, and ensure every resident citizen has free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity.

Sure you do. You just don't like it.

I'm not a legal or constitutional expert, so I don't know what the effect of that would be, or what the best way to enable better governance in the USA would be. I'm talking about the facts of economics, not what lawyers and politicians say.

Right. But more like the 90%, and more like 100 years ago.

I'm not very much more interested in what Biden says than in what Trump says.

 

So does everyone who uses the bridge whether they own land AT ALL in ANY PLACE.

When have you ever stopped to pay some private landowner to use a bridge? What "full market value". I have very pateintly asked several times now when have you paid them to use a bridge they do not even own?

I just went over several bridges one about 8 miles long and then through a tunnel and then some more bridges and I didn't pay anyone or have to get anyone's permission to do so. You are spouting some college professors economic nonsense.

And the fact is LOTS of people benefit from the bridge being there and no one has to ask permission of pay someone else to do so.

My house benefited when someone else built their house across the street are they forever subsidizing me? See you even got what is a subsidy wrong.

How do you measure that and SO WHAT? A shopping center went up close by bring more convenient shopping close to my land, are they now forever subsidizing my house? Guess what no one has to come to my house and give me money or ask my permission to shop there even though it raise the value of my property.

A landowner free and clear, where is my subsidy?

Not only am I disputing it I am refutting and have yet to ask any landowner permission to go over a bridge that makes getting to his land more convenient or let him run by debt card. I as a landowner have yet to have someone ask me permission to use the road that runs in front on my house let alone pay me to do so.

I'm not buying their land I'm cross a bridge.

Well I certainly hope we do NOT use your rockets to send people or things into space else they will have to get the permission of all the landowners over whose land it will pass over and pay some subsidy I guess.

I didn't pay anyone or get permission to use the bridge I just passed over nor have I charged or demanded permission of anyone going in front of my home.

NO and I certainly don't think you do.

It's a toll to use the bridge or road and what market determines who much the landowner gets, when do I get mine?

Which of course is not a fact, LOTS of non-landowners benefit from public infrastructure.

Well how much do I owe then? And where is all the money in this subsidy I've never seen it.

And economics are tied hand in hand with our laws.

Well being an economics expert you do know the difference between marginal and effective rates? Why would you want to tax someone at 90%, do you think it is morally and ethically right for a government to do so, for a majority to take from a minority in such a manner?

He want's to make the tax system more progressive do you agree with him? Trump wants to at the least keep the rights he and the Rep Congress set. With which do you agree and why?

 

"These figures are from a Tax Foundation analysis of the IRS data (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/)."

• In 2021, taxpayers filed 153.6 million tax returns, reported earning more than $14.7 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI), and paid nearly $2.2 trillion in individual income taxes.
• The average income tax rate in 2021 was 14.9 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.
• 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.
• The 2021 figures include pandemic-related tax items from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), such as the non-refundable part of the third round of Recovery Rebates and the expanded child tax credit (CTC) and earned income tax credit (EITC).
• Capital gains realizations exceeded $2 trillion to reach a 40-year high, driving income growth and taxes paid for high-income groups.

Lack of rebuttal and response noted.
If this and the numbers posted is not "fair" as Biden and the Dems and the MSM claim then what would be post the numbers that at which point it would be "fair".

 

What's with all the class warfare?

 

<yawn> I simply identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality that prove the privileged are oversubsidized, not overtaxed. But maybe Warren Buffett said it in a way you can find a willingness to understand:

“There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” -- Warren Buffett

 

No, that's false, disingenuous, and absurd. If there is a public bus service that you get to ride for free, but if I want to use it, I have to pay you the market price of a ticket, then the service is a subsidy to you, and I get no benefit. You know this.

Every time I paid location rent.

The market value of permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure that make any given location more desirable.

And I have told you very patiently several times: every time I paid them land rent, which included permission to access all desirable public services and infrastructure accessible from that location, including the bridge.

You most certainly did. You paid a landowner for permission. Why are you falsely and disingenuously claiming that you didn't have to pay for the land you own, or that owning it doesn't get you permission to use the bridges, etc.?

It is just a fact of economics that all public spending on desirable services and infrastructure is a subsidy to landowners.

No, your claim is false. Everyone who wants to use the bridge has to pay a landowner full market value for permission to access it.

No it didn't. YOU benefited to the extent that the LAND you own -- not the house -- became more valuable. But it wasn't a subsidy because no one's rights were abrogated to provide that benefit.

No, you got what is land wrong.

The market measures it, and so the landowner is getting a subsidy.

Can you somehow find a willingness to know the difference between "house" and "land"? Can you somehow find a willingness to know the difference between what people choose to do and what government forcibly compels them to do?

Not yet. But they will. And you know it. Why are you pretending that you do not? Is it because you have already realized that that fact proves your beliefs are false and evil?

They are paying, or have already paid, some landowner for permission. Just not you. Yet.

Shocker!

The entire publicly created unimproved rental value of your land is a subsidy.

No, you are merely denying it. You cannot dispute the facts because that would require contrary facts or arguments, and you haven't provided any, nor will you ever be doing so.

You paid the previous landowner full market value for permission to access all public services and infrastructure that are accessible from that location, including the bridge.

And you know it.

No real estate agent has ever asked if you want to sell your place?

I doubt that.

Do you think that when you sell your land, it somehow won't come with permission to use the local roads and other infrastructure?

You know better than that. Why pretend you do not?

Permission to use the bridge goes with permission to use the land. And you know it. Why pretend you do not?

Does such silly, disingenuous tripe really help you avoid knowing the indisputable facts of objectively physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil?

Didn't you pay the previous landowner anything for the land?

I doubt that.

Why are you trying to deny facts that everyone reading this knows are true?

So what? They were just paying some other landowner.

No it isn't. Paying for permission to use something whenever you want to use it is not the same as paying a toll every time you use it. You know this.

The real estate market.

When you rent or sell the land.

It is most definitely a fact, and no, they do not, because they have to pay landowners full market value just for permission to use it.

The full publicly created rental value of your land.

Sure you have. The main reason you bought the place was that you knew how profitable pocketing the subsidy was likely to be.

Laws certainly have economic effects, but are rarely based on economics.

Yes.

Because they earned less than 10% by commensurate contributions to production.

And the 90% I was referring to was the fraction of citizens who should not be paying any income tax, not the marginal or effective tax rate.

One of the most economically successful income taxes of all time was the British income tax levied to pay for the Napoleonic wars in the early 19th century. But at that time, "income" meant passive investment income, almost all of it land rents. Earnings from labor were called, "wages," not "income." Taxing land rents is very fair and stimulates the economy because land rent is created by government and the community, not the landowner.

It is the rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic minority that is doing the taking from the honest, working majority, and I will thank you to remember it.

I would, but I don't necessarily trust that his favored policies will actually have that effect.

On any given question, Trump and the Republicans in Congress are almost guaranteed to be on the side of evil.

 

Lol. Get a clue. Get a job. Get a life.

 

<yawn> I am the one posting indisputable facts, you are the one denying them without evidence. Deal with it.

<yawn> I have worked for companies big and small, governments at all levels, NGOs, and was self-employed for many years.

Deal with it.

Regrets, I've had a few....

But I've had quite a good life, actually. Deal with it.

The truth is, Warren Buffett, who is incomparably better informed on the subject than you, just spat right in your face and told you flat-out that I am right and you are wrong.

Deal with it.

 

Never paid someone else nor sought their permission nor anyone with me.

So take the numbers I posted and show me how much more progressive you want it.

 

In my opinion.......

The British North America Act that created Canada seemed to have in mind the rather brilliant President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment that ... .in my opinion... hints that INCOME TAX is a conspiracy by the extreme wealthy against blue collar workers who become highly successful at what they do........

Billionaires use tax law to pay essentially ZERO income tax........

You can see the background to this in the quite accurate "All The Money In the World" movie that was done about a situation faced by J. Paul Getty!


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/all-the-money-in-the-world.585462/#post-1072470031

www.BankingSystemFlaws.blogspot.com/

Written by me back in 2006.....

In my opinion... Ms. Betty Krawczyk did a better job of explaining this than I did......

 

That's a bald falsehood.

I already did:
You should pay the full economic rent of the privileges you own. If you made $7G without any privileges, you should keep the $7G. If you made $7G using privileges whose rents totaled $14G, you should pay $14G.

And, way back in post #141 in this thread (which you predictably ignored):
I won't claim it's "fair," but if we have to have an income tax, I would suggest:
Bottom 50% 10.4% of income _0_% of taxes _0_% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% _0_% of income 8.4% of taxes _0_% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income _0_% of taxes _0_% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income _0_% of taxes _0_% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income _10_% of taxes _10_% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income _90_% of taxes _50_% rate