Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My favorite member @JohnC made a claim in another thread on how taxing the rich wouldn't cure our budget deficit, and I thought I'd go fact check his claims... First though, here is the claim:

Give him a fact like, if Bernie Sanders taxed everyone at 100% who make $1,000,000.00 or more and it still wouldn't be enough to pay for our current borrowing and spending levels, which means US Debt will continue to increase, and he'll still preach Socialism will fix everything, and chant tax the rich 100%.
Now I can't get income and tax numbers broken down by people who make 1 million or more, so I'll spot JohnC and only use the top .1% of Americans. That's right, not the 1%, the .1% of America.

Let's start with the current budget deficit. It was recently reported that the 2015 US federal budget deficit dropped to $439 billion. That number was reported by the US Treasury Department according to The Wallstreet Journal.

Next, I stopped by the Tax Policy Center to learn just what the top .1% made in 2014 and what those effective tax rates were when they filed under the current year...

The top .1% made on average $9,446,793 dollars between 115,000 tax units and paid an effective tax, on average, of $3,297,476 or roughly a 34.9% tax rate. Now I know the number JC used was 100% tax rate, but I'm a reasonable man. In the 40's and the 50's, the top effective tax rate in the US was around 90%, so lets go back to the golden age. But as I said before, I'm reasonable, so lets give them a 10% break and go with an 80% effective rate. Now that we have the information we need, lets do the math.

$9,446,793 x .80 = $7,557,434

We then take that number minus what they actually paid this year so:

$7,557,434 - $3,297,476 = $4,259,958

We'll now multiply the difference between what they actually paid and would have paid under the socialist iron fist with the amount of taxed units:

$4,259,958 x 115,000 units = $489,895,170,000 in extra tax income.

Now not only did I cut back the pool of tax payers by only using the .1%, I also spotted JC 20% on the tax rate. Even with those handicaps, we'd see a $50,895,170,000 budget surplus.

:surprise:

Socialist iron fist: 1
Conservative "facts": 0

Now, do I personally think the solution to our problem is just tax the rich like we used to and ignore the huge budget? No. I do think there are plenty of places to cut taxes (hello, defense spending), and I don't think the top .1% should be the lone people to foot the bill. The other .99% of the 1% can help, along with corporations. Scaling back some entitlements would also be essential. But hey, that's just me...
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
You know what? I don't care. I'm not going to waste one second getting the numbers together to compare and find the lies. :no

I actually hope they do tax the rich nationally at 90%. They've done it before in some places and the rich took their wealth and left, which ended up making those Govt lose assloads of tax revenue and jobs rather than gaining it. :yes

You will see the biggest collapse in our economic system ever as the rich look to move their money to safe places, probably outside of the country since this would be federally imposed. They're not going to invest and create businesses because what's the point? I wouldn't get out of bed to earn an income if it were taxed at 90%. :no

Just like the Socialists and Communists. Create the crisis and swoop in with claims they can fix it with more social justice. LOL

They'll keep blaming capitalism while they're the ones destroying it and we get more in debt and poorer every day. They need us all poor and begging the Govt for free stuff. It keeps their parry in power.

They don't win elections when we have a good economy, everyone is working and making good money. They win when the economy is ****ed up and folks aren't getting paychecks, but they are voting for a living and getting welfare, etc.

Have fun with your socialist utopia. :yes

---------- Post added at 03:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 AM ----------

Oh, and here goes my post that he didn't want to quote:

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion.

Our debt would continue to explode because Govt is too busy blowing our tax money, giving it away globally to fund Govt interests in other nations, and making promises to buy votes on credit with interest here at home.

Total Government Spending in the United States

Federal Gross Spending $4.0 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
_________________________________________
Total Spending $6.5 trillion

US Government Current Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing


A vote for a democratic socialist is a vote to be a classless slave in an indebted nation. That's it in a nut shell. Well, unless you're an athlete, movie star, politician or a part of the Govt cronies and oligarchs.

Total US Unfunded Liabilities as of 2012 level was $122.1 trillion: http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
You know what? I don't care. I'm not going to waste one second getting the numbers together to compare and find the lies. :no
LOL. You admit you aren't going to look into the numbers (even when I provided you sources) and proceed to call them lies. That sums it up. You aren't here to reason. You're here to be an asshole and make **** posts all day.

I actually hope they do tax the rich nationally at 90%. They've done it before in some places and the rich took their wealth and left, which ended up making those Govt lose assloads of tax revenue and jobs rather than gaining it. :yes
I know that, JohnC. They did it here, in the ole' US of A. In 1931 the top rate was 25%. The next year it more then doubled to 62.7%. And then for the next two decades, the golden age of America, it sat at 90%. What a terrible time it was in America when the rich were just so oppressed, right?

They don't win elections when we have a good economy, everyone is working and making good money. They win when the economy is ****ed up and folks aren't getting paychecks, but they are voting for a living and getting welfare, etc.
So what you're saying is we have Republicans under good economies, they **** it up, and we put Democrats in to fix it? Damn, JC, I'm surprised you'd say that! :lmao

Oh, and here goes my post that he didn't want to quote
I noticed you copy and pasted instead of quoting, so can I get a link to where you originally posted this? Certainly wasn't recent. Not that I'm going to argue or look into it, since you don't have the respect to defend your own foolish ****ing previous quote. I don't blame you, you know you're dead wrong, but it's funny (and sadly, expected behavior) that you'd resort to ignorantly calling them lies.

---------- Post added at 05:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 AM ----------

Oh, excuse me, it was recent! Right here

I'll be nice and point out that the 2015 deficit number came out that same day, meaning you'd have to base your logic on the 2014 budget deficit. Unfortunately, you'd STILL be wrong. The deficit in 2014 was 483 billion. The take, according to YOU and YOUR SOURCE, would more then cover the deficit.

But leave it to you to move the goalposts. Now you want to talk about the total debt, not the deficit. I hate to break it to you, JC, but no matter how much we cut, it's not going to instantly solve that massive debt(one that both parties can take blame for). The only way it's ever going to be dealt with one day is balancing the budget and creating a yearly surplus. Something you've claimed higher taxes can't do yet clearly, based on my sources and yours, can do just that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts

·
Turbo > blower
Joined
·
13,867 Posts
Why aren't rich people entitled to the fruits of their labor like the rest of us? Why is it that because they're successful, you think the responsibility of funding our government lies primarily on the successful? What's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage of their income? I'm not rich by any means but I see no reason to punish people for being successful.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Why aren't rich people entitled to the fruits of their labor like the rest of us? Why is it that because they're successful, you think the responsibility of funding our government lies primarily on the successful? What's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage of their income? I'm not rich by any means but I see no reason to punish people for being successful.
Because Socialists and Communists hate anyone who makes more money than they make or that has more power than them.

They ultimately want to rule everyone, at the cost of punishing the successful and making everyone classless, poor, oppressed slaves to them.

Just read up on Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, and look all through history on Socialist and Communist lead Govt's.

It never ends well. :no
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
I'm not trying to call anybody communist or socialist here I just want to hear the other side of the coin
Did you watch the last Democratic debate? They all spoke of "Social Justice" and ol' Bernie is openly running as a Socialist. Those who use that phrase are generally Socialists and Communists.

They pulled their masks off this time. Except Hillary, she is still trying to call herself a "Progressive" which every Socialist and Communist I've heard in backroom meetings admit they call themselves "Progressives" instead of admitting they're Socialists and Communists.

If You want, I can dig up the videos of a few of them admitting they called themselves "progressives" in backroom Socialist and Communist party meetings. Just let me know.

See around the 1:40 mark here for one example and Rep Danny Davis was receiving a Communist Party Award:


They're all in it together. The Communist Party USA says they're for Socialism. Why? Socialism is the first step to Communism: Home » cpusa
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Why aren't rich people entitled to the fruits of their labor like the rest of us? Why is it that because they're successful, you think the responsibility of funding our government lies primarily on the successful? What's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage of their income? I'm not rich by any means but I see no reason to punish people for being successful.
I actually just went into this discussion with Woodman in the thread linked in the post above me.

Here's the specific post:

You assume that I feel the way you do about taxes. Based on what I've read, you clearly view paying taxes as a burden and little if nothing more. I don't see it that way. That's not to say my view is superior to yours, it's just something we see differently and no amount of debate will probably change that. What one may view as punishment, another may view as helping that person in the long run. People always bitch about the price of admission to the more expensive theater, but don't hesitate to enjoy the better amenities offered.

(This next part isn't directed at you, Woodman, but just some general thoughts.)

This idea is always pushed around that when you tax people who make more money, they're simply going to take their ball and go home. Maybe to some extent there is truth to that, but we've seen, in practice, the complete opposite. For 49 years, from 1932 to 1981, the highest tax rate was at least 60% or more. Then TEFRA slashed those top tax rates for the rich while the average man continued to pay effectively the same tax rates. It was at this point the burden shifted from the rich, and the argument was that the wealth would trickle down from the top, but wages have been effectively stagnant since. It just seems to me like **** got worse after the fact, not better.
 

·
Turbo > blower
Joined
·
13,867 Posts
six, could you expand? I'm just trying to understand your point of view. You see taxes as a price of admission of sorts? You view it as the more you put in the more you get out kinda thing? Not trying to flame just trying to understand
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I understand this is far from a perfect comparison, but it's like choosing a place to run your business.

You have the upscale, very popular new mall that's going to run you $5000 in rent a month versus the dated, run down old mall a town over for $2500 a month. There is no right or wrong choice. It's dependent on your personal view of what's important to you. I feel like, personally, when you have highly successful people or businesses here in America complaining about their taxes, it's like being mad that they've set up shop in the upscale mall but think they deserve to only pay rent equivalent to the more run down mall.

I think the other thing that gets me about the fairness stuff, and this isn't directed at you or anyone specifically on this forum, is that when a kid grows up to a ****ed up set of parents in a shitty neighborhood in an area loaded with drugs and that kid doesn't grow up to be successful it's "Well tough luck, life isn't fair, you should have worked harder" yet in today's society where the vast majority of our wealthy are not self made, people are quick to cry unfair when someone such as myself feels like they should carry a larger share of the load.
 

·
Turbo > blower
Joined
·
13,867 Posts
I think I see where you're coming from. But I look at it this way. With the 5k mall in the nice neighborhood you're going to be able to set higher prices giving you a larger margin of profit, whereas in the more run down part of town you're more than likely going to have to set lower prices to sell your products because of it being a part of town with less money. So for example purposes lets say you net 50k of profit monthly in the nicer mall but you can only pull 25k in the lesser one. making rent 10% of your profit in both examples. the richer mall is still paying more yes but it's also taking more in. in a flat tax system the rich would still be paying more money than the regular folk, but its proportionate. They would be handing over the same percentage of their income to uncle sam.



I think a better example for your situation would be like owning a nice car. It costs more money to own a brand new maserati vs a 1990 Honda CRX
 

·
Pawsitively sexy
Joined
·
10,564 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I think I see where you're coming from. But I look at it this way. With the 5k mall in the nice neighborhood you're going to be able to set higher prices giving you a larger margin of profit, whereas in the more run down part of town you're more than likely going to have to set lower prices to sell your products because of it being a part of town with less money. So for example purposes lets say you net 50k of profit monthly in the nicer mall but you can only pull 25k in the lesser one. making rent 10% of your profit in both examples. the richer mall is still paying more yes but it's also taking more in. in a flat tax system the rich would still be paying more money than the regular folk, but its proportionate. They would be handing over the same percentage of their income to uncle sam.



I think a better example for your situation would be like owning a nice car. It costs more money to own a brand new maserati vs a 1990 Honda CRX
I don't want anyone to get hung up on the specific example. Looking at just numbers, if I told you you could have a business where you net $500,000 after paying 50% in tax or a business where you net $80,000 after paying 25% in tax, which would you prefer? If I told you the first business required twice the work, would it change anything?

Everything is a compromise in life. It's like OHC vs OHV. OHC guys are going to point to the fact they get more horsepower per liter while OHV guys will argue that, because of the more compact design, they can compensate for the loss of efficiency with more displacement in the same sized engine(dimensionally speaking). Neither side is right or wrong, it just depends on your point of view and the given situation.

It's coke vs pepsi.

Chevy vs Ford.

Marvel vs DC.

Professional versus amature porn.

The list goes on.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,198 Posts
in a perfect world, we would be finding ways to cut useless government spending before talking about raising anybody's taxes.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
in a perfect world, we would be finding ways to cut useless government spending before talking about raising anybody's taxes.
Then comes the infinite debate about what's "useless".

Some see social spending useless regardless of what percentage of overall cost.

Some see buying not-needed weapons useless.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,198 Posts
Then comes the infinite debate about what's "useless".

Some see social spending useless regardless of what percentage of overall cost.

Some see buying not-needed weapons useless.
ceasing budget increases for agencies that overbid on contracts for the primary purpose of receiving said budget increases would be a start
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top