The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Obviously because they're whiners. The sense of entitlement at the top is extraordinary. Only surpassed by those lower on the ladder that agree with the idea that the hyper rich are entitled.

 

No, they did not. Here's the actual data from a LW source.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

So, your claim above is inaccurate as a matter of irrefutable historical fact, and not opinion. Will give you the benefit of a doubt that the error was just due to ignorance this time and not purposeful dishonesty.

Repeat it again, after knowing the facts, and that will make you a liar.

Moreover, that federal tax revenues did NOT in fact "nosedive" after the 1986 IRC Reform disproves your original claim, that "Reagan cut taxes on the rich nearly in half" also. Federal tax receipts do not reflect any such thing.

You're welcome.

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. The accurate way to refer to it is "prevailing US tax policy," and never "Reagan Tax Cuts." Again, you're welcome.

 

It could be worse, right

Pardon me if I don't take your advice on anything political or economic when you hang your hat in the worlds worst places of poverty and humanitarian inequality on the planet. Clearly hyper in this case is your avoidance of reality and hypocritical view of the U.S.!

 

Why are the rich whining about high tax brackets? Hell, I don't know. Maybe it's because they have to pay their tax attorneys and tax accountants more money to "fix" their tax statements so that they can go on paying little or nothing!

This is an area, Lesh... perhaps the ONE area where you guys on the far-Left and us on the far-Right should be in solidarity. But, even in this, it seems that you don't want to exhibit any real understanding or unity at all. And as a result, both the über-wealthy Republicans AND the über-wealthy Democrats will go on laughing their way to the bank, winking at each other!

If you've read any of my more venous posts during the past eight years you know that I've been raving and ranting about the damned rotten, stinking, totally unfair U. S. Tax Code over and over and over. Funny that I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever seen forum posters from the far-Left complaining about it.... Perhaps that is because for the past eight years so many of them have been on some kind of welfare-suck and they didn't bitch about taxes because they didn't EARN any income to be taxed on in the first place!

. "Dude, we got no tax issue. Dis come to us for free from da Govuhment!"

 

Counter to empirical fact. Read the link I posted in my prior post from a LW group. Stop posting misinformation. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes in the US, and when discussed as actual $$ and not %s, the staggering amounts the top earners pay are de jure injustice.

One reason we have the central corruption we have is the immense size of the pool for graft. No individual natural human taxpayer, regardless of how much they make, should ever have to pay more than $1 million in taxes at all levels in any given year, and further, once any individual has paid a lifetime total of $5 million in taxes at all levels, they should be exempt from all further income taxation, again at all levels.

 

Wealth is only abstract to those who don't worry about money (ya know the WEALTHY).

To everyone else it is a very real and scarce resource

 

Um, no that's not fair. Some people make a couple hundred million every year, they can afford it, and we have services to pay for.

Here's how much the richest Americans make
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/31/news/economy/richest-americans/index.html

 

"They can afford it," a great reason to take more from those who earned it... said no moral person ever.

 

Wrong as usual (do you ever get tired of being perpetually wrong?) "Wealth" is an abstraction, it is always an abstraction, it is never "real," nor a "scarce resource," as a matter of definitional fact, and not opinion.

Benighted leftists keep arguing 2+2 = 5 in print for all to see. Why they lose and lose and lose. Maybe pick an honest point you could actually -win- for once?

 

But it's moral to bankrupt this country???

 

It's moral to defund and decentralize government back to Lockean principles. We need about 10-20% of the government we have.

 

Another insane statement.

Imagine the Depression that would cause...

 

AND that tax rate can often be avoided through utilizing various loopholes

 

If you're admitting donald doesn't have a brain we're on the same page.

 

You tell a guy making $30K that wealth (or his lack of it) is "abstract"

You'll be lucky if you don't get punched out

 

Good for you. You cut right through the bs to the core of the matter.

And they talk about liberal elites. At least liberal elites know the difference between having just enough money to pay the basic bills, and having 100,000 times more than that.

 

Name specifically the 80-90% that can be eliminated.

 

Back to the topic. A while ago I asked the defenders of the rich how much of all federal taxes are paid by the rich. I could just tell them but its better they find out for themselves. They go to sites that coach it in very specific terms but never the overall picture. I could do the same. Did you know that the bottom 80% pay nearly 100% of the luxury tax? It's true. The luxury tax only taxes domestic beer. Pabst taxed. A $7000 bottle of Château le Snob '53 no luxury tax.
If they were to look up all federal income, where it comes from and then calculate how much a % of each bracket they just might sing a different tune.

 

I think it'd be more fun watching him try to tell a judge his client during a settlement is not rich despite the private jet, the.millions in stocks and bond and the five houses because since everyone hates him he's actually poor in the abstract.

 

War was the most common "father" of National Debt, until these latest postwar years:


Comparatively, the New Deal raised the debt marginally less than war-time in the history of the US.

We seem to have evolved a "knack" for it, and frankly I think it is the lowering of Upper Income-tax rates introduced by Reckless Ronnie (in the 1980s) who is largely responsible.

And, as regards those rates, here we go again with Donald Dork who is going to reduce them even further. (Seen his Income Tax statements? Neither have I ...)

 

Except the rich will pay even more taxes than everyone else, even with tax cuts. Something the liberals can't seem to get their heads wrapped around.

 

What you can't seem to get is that "proportion" is one thing and "fairness" quite another. In fact, you perhaps think that obtaining Wealth is like some sort of sport, where "the winner takes all"?

Well, it isn't. It happens to be a mechanism that is decided by the PotUS and Congress.

We all work to provide the wherewithal of a market-economy to provide goods/services. We pay taxes to assure that our economy remains fair and just - not warped.

But our taxation system is just that, deeply prejudicial, and the consequence seen in the huge distortion of Wealth-distribution proves it:


I gather you think the above is "fair and just"; that 0.1% of the population obtain a level of Wealth equal to the other 90%?

What planet do you live on ... ?

 

Or here.

 

Massive rip-off by just 0.1% of the population of Wealth!

My proposal:

Moreover, we institute a 95% taxation limit above all incomes of more than 10 megabucks a year. And an inheritance tax of half of all wealth.

Then let's see what happens to the general well-being of the other 99.9% of American families ...

 

Yeah, no. War was included in the context of my prior argument, as were a whole bunch of other points you skipped to make childish epithets of presidents' names. Fail.