The 1%ers now worth nearly as much as the entire middle class

[Bugsy McGurk]

It won't shrink the wealth gap

Of course it will. Placing a greater share of the taxation burden on the 1%ers would do that by definition, in addition to tackling the deficits.

But why raise taxes on the working poor and the middle class?

 

[PhilFish]

Of course it will. Placing a greater share of the taxation burden on the 1%ers would do that by definition, in addition to tackling the deficits.

But why raise taxes on the working poor and the middle class?

the 1% pay near 40%. the top 50 pay 97%.... seems pretty self evident...

In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).N

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

the 1% pay near 40%. the top 50 pay 97%.... seems pretty self evident...

In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).N

And with all that, our nation’s policies, especially massive tax cuts for the fatcats, have still resulted in the 1%ers accumulating nearly as much wealth as the entire middle class. Of course the ultra wealthy pay a lot of taxes - they make most of the money.

In any event, the question remains - should we revise our nation’s policies to partially reverse the massive shift of wealth to the ultra wealthy? You seem to say no.

 

[PhilFish]

And with all that, our nation’s policies, especially massive tax cuts for the fatcats, have still resulted in the 1%ers accumulating nearly as much wealth as the entire middle class. Of course the ultra wealthy pay a lot of taxes - they make most of the money.

In any event, the question remains - should we revise our nation’s policies to partially reverse the massive shift of wealth to the ultra wealthy? You seem to say no.

I've already said ...tax em all

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I've already said ...tax em all

OK, but why? That would grow the wealth gap even more, and greatly reduce consumer spending on goods and services by the working poor and the middles class. Terrible policy all the way around.

 

[PhilFish]

OK, but why? That would grow the wealth gap even more, and greatly reduce consumer spending on goods and services by the working poor and the middles class. Terrible policy all the way around.

groundhogs day? because we need more tax revenue

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

groundhogs day? because we need more tax revenue

That’s what we agree on. I’m asking about what we disagree on. Why not get all the extra tax revenues from the 1%ers for the reasons I laid out?

 

[BobbyT]

I've already said ...tax em all

If you reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, which puts more money in their pockets, which they spend all or nearly all of. This increased spending increases demand and thereby generates POS taxes and manufacturing jobs (which generate income taxes).

If you reduce taxes on the wealthy, it takes money out of the economy because they shelter it.

To stimulate the economy and generate tax revenue, reduce taxes on poor and middle tax and raise taxes on the wealthy.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

If you reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, which puts more money in their pockets, which they spend all or nearly all of. This increased spending increases demand and thereby generates POS taxes and manufacturing jobs (which generate income taxes).

If you reduce taxes on the wealthy, it takes money out of the economy because they shelter it.

To stimulate the economy and generate tax revenue, reduce taxes on poor and middle tax and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Makes perfect sense.

The Republicans will never go for it.

;-)

 

[PhilFish]

If you reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, which puts more money in their pockets, which they spend all or nearly all of. This increased spending increases demand and thereby generates POS taxes and manufacturing jobs (which generate income taxes).

If you reduce taxes on the wealthy, it takes money out of the economy because they shelter it.

To stimulate the economy and generate tax revenue, reduce taxes on poor and middle tax and raise taxes on the wealthy.

understood. the burden on the bottom 50% is some 3% of all tax revenue.

lower?

 

[ObamacareForever]

doesn't current tax policy have that sliver of one-percenters paying some 40-plus percent of everything now? When is enough enough? Not saying that we shouldn't oh, just curious what is enough.

Balancing the budget would be a nice starting point.

I'm also curious why we spend so much time lambasting the well-to-do, who clearly put the effort in in a majority of cases to Garner earnings they have...

Stereotype much? Plenty of one percenters haven't worked a day in their life and merely inherited wealth.

but we put a little effort into lambasting those that are indolent and not driven who interned don't bother to educate themselves and consequently earn a pittance, and then bitch and moan about how everybody else earns more than they

Bashing the poor is poor politics. How you gonna win an election when your base is literally made up of 1%?

 

[ObamacareForever]

It won't shrink the wealth gap

A wealth tax would.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I don't know why you retards keep telling that fcking LIE over and over again. You've lost the argument in the 80s and you lost it today. Are you just plain STUPID?

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/supplyside-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record

Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).


On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

• Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/09/more-evidence-that-trumps-tax-cuts-are-working/

In fiscal year 2019, which ended in September, corporate income taxes raised $230 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s $25 billion more than the year before and amounts to an increase of 12.4% – or roughly three times the growth rate of the overall economy.


Wait, what?


Every single Democrat running for president has railed against the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, calling it a massive giveaway to corporations. Among other things, that law cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% – which was higher than any other industrialized nation in the world – to a more competitive 21%.


Every one of these candidates wants the corporate tax cuts “rolled back,” either partially or entirely. Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to go so far as to impose what amounts to a graduated income tax rate on corporations. They would have to pay an additional 7% tax on profits above $100 million – which she says will generate $1 trillion over a decade.


What the Democrats aren’t telling anyone is that, at $230 billion, corporate income tax revenues are higher than even the Trump administration had expected at the start of the year, and they are higher still than the Congressional Budget Office projected when Trump signed the tax cuts into law.


Then, the CBO said corporate revenues would come in at $409 billion in the first two years of the corporate tax cuts. Actual revenues were $435 billion – almost 7% higher.


Individual income tax revenues were up 2% in 2019, and payroll tax revenue was up by 6.2%, CBO data show.


Overall federal revenues were up 4% in 2019. And they are up compared with 2017, the year before the tax cuts went into effect.

Ok, fine, but surely revenues would have been much higher without the tax cuts, right?

Well, let’s compare the revenue gains in 2019 with the changes in fiscal 2016, Obama’s last year in office.

That year, corporate tax revenues fell by almost 13%. Individual income taxes were virtually flat – up by 0.4%. Payroll taxes grew less than 5%.

Overall revenues that year were up less than 1%.

How about fiscal 2017, which ended in Trump’s first year, but before any of the tax changes went into effect?

That year, overall revenues eked out a 1.4% gain. Corporate income taxes dropped again, by 1%. Individual income and payroll taxes went up, but by less than in 2019.

So, the bottom line is revenues are increasing at a faster clip now than they were in the two years prior to the tax cuts, when the economy was slogging along.

It stands to reason that by accelerating the economy, the tax cuts clearly partially paid for themselves, just as Republicans promised.

I don't care if the mods kick me out of here for hurting your feelings. You are NOT going to get away with telling the same fcking LIE over and over again. Every time you do, I'm going to call you on it.

We're in the greatest economy of all time. It was TRUMP AND TRUMP ALONE who accomplished it, with NO HELP from the Democrats or that Obama.

You have LOST this argument.

Why not stop cutting taxes? Hell, rate cuts don't even have to stop at zero. Institute negative tax rates. That'll surely raise government revenues.

 

[PhilFish]

Balancing the budget would be a nice starting point.

Stereotype much? Plenty of one percenters haven't worked a day in their life and merely inherited wealth.

Bashing the poor is poor politics. How you gonna win an election when your base is literally made up of 1%?

where did i limit my comment to the poor? seems i'm not the one bashing..

1% of a voting population is hardly anyone's base.

 

[PhilFish]

A wealth tax would.

education would too.

 

[ObamacareForever]

1% of a voting population is hardly anyone's base.

I mean Mitt Romney, circa 2012.

 

[ObamacareForever]

where did i limit my comment to the poor? seems i'm not the one bashing..

but we put a little effort into lambasting those that are indolent and not driven who interned don't bother to educate themselves and consequently earn a pittance

 

[PhilFish]

nice. where is that limited to the poor?

 

[ObamacareForever]

nice. where is that limited to the poor?

"earn a pittance"=poor

 

[PhilFish]

"earn a pittance"=poor

The kids of middle class folk automatically jump into well paying jobs?