Beck's worst nightmare-

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Let's take a look at that by the numbers. The 99th percentile of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the total income taxes collected. The top 25 percent pay 85 percent of the tax bill.

On the other hand... the bottom 50 percent earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

So please... define "their fair share".

you don't really believe that do you? these corporations have the best tax lawyers money can buy. they aren't paying anywhere near that. as for the bottom 50% - they are people that live paycheck to paycheck, one disaster away from total ruin. do you think the term "tax shelter" was invented by one of them?

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

it's time to bring back the tax rates that provided the robust economies history clearly shows us we had when the wealthy were made to pay their fair share.

I deleted my first post (apparently not in time) to give updated numbers.

Let's take a look at that by the numbers.

Top 1% = 20% of AGI, 30.2% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 23.27%
Top 5% = 34.73% of AGI, 58.72% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 20.70%
Top 25% = 67.38% of AGI, 86.34% of total income tax paid, at an average rate of 15.68%

On the otherhand...

Bottom 50% = 12.75% of AGI and only 2.7% of the total income tax collected at an average rate of only 2.59%


So please... define "their fair share".

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Please provide proof that show a direct correlation between higher taxes and a better economy with nothing else affecting said economy to make it better.

so, you think the boom of the 1950's when tax rates were at 91% under Eisenhower was just a fluke?

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

you don't really believe that do you? these corporations have the best tax lawyers money can buy. they aren't paying anywhere near that. as for the bottom 50% - they are people that live paycheck to paycheck, one disaster away from total ruin. do you think the term "tax shelter" was invented by one of them?

Those are the numbers reported by the IRS. Not by the news media, not by journalists, but the raw data from the IRS. ...and I never said anything about corporations but that was a nice try.

Long story short. They do pay their "fair share" but that's not enough in your mind. You think that you should tax the shit out of the rich to pay for the poor.


EDIT:

Like I said, look at the numbers for the individuals that was posted (verify if you would like) and then please define what you mean by "fair share". Of course I don't expect you to. I'm expecting that instead you will change the subject again to corporations or something else.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

so, you think the boom of the 1950's when tax rates were at 91% under Eisenhower was just a fluke?

You think the economic boom of the 50s was caused by the tax rates???

Wow.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You think the economic boom of the 50s was caused by the tax rates???

Wow.

no. I think when corporations are heavily taxed they tend to invest in their companies for tax advantages instead of sitting on their wealth like they have been doing. surely you know how that relates to economic growth. here's a link regarding regressive tax- Middle Class Impact » Our Regressive Income Tax

[thkauffman]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

no. I think when corporations are heavily taxed they tend to invest in their companies for tax advantages instead of sitting on their wealth like they have been doing. surely you know how that relates to economic growth. here's a link regarding regressive tax- Middle Class Impact » Our Regressive Income Tax

Your premise goes directly against every viable economic theory around. Think guns and butter. It's the most basic thing in econ.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by thkauffman

Your premise goes directly against every viable economic theory around. Think guns and butter. It's the most basic thing in econ.

wow....you must be a real speed reader. I'm still reading that 1800 word article.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

wow....you must be a real speed reader. I'm still reading that 1800 word article.

It's an article written on a liberal website by a liberal from a liberal point of view. I can find plenty more like it and I can find equally as many with a conservative point of view that don't agree at all. What's your point?

The simple fact is this. You believe that the rich should be taxed to the point that they support the poor. That is what is "fair" in your mind.

[thkauffman]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

wow....you must be a real speed reader. I'm still reading that 1800 word article.

RIF.

I was commenting on your belief about taxes and corporations.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

It's an article written on a liberal website by a liberal from a liberal point of view. I can find plenty more like it and I can find equally as many with a conservative point of view that don't agree at all. What's your point?

my point is just because it was written by a liberal doesn't mean it's not factual & highly informative. just "shoot the messenger" went out centuries ago.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

so, you think the boom of the 1950's when tax rates were at 91% under Eisenhower was just a fluke?

What "boom" ??? This is a MYTH. Average annual REAL GDP growth under Eisenhower was a mere 3%. Things seemed "Golden" because ANYTHING is Golden compared to World War and Depression. In 1950 and 1951 only, we experience a short boom (Truman was still in office) as we recovered from the 1945-1949 recession (that's right, in addition to the great depression, new deal economic policy managed to get us into a slump AGAIN immediately after the war). During Eisenhower's term, we experience big growth in 1955 and 1959 only, with the remaining 6 years added in giving us an average of only 3%. Lower than during the Kennedy/LBJ admin, the Reagan admin, hell, even the Carter admin.

For comparison, the number rose to 4.9 % during the 8 years of Kennedy/Johnson.

Under Kennedy/LBJ, BTW, we reversed course, cut taxes, and looked to the private sector to promote economic growth. Eisenhower's administration was the first peace time and non depression time test of New Deal tax and economic policy. It proved inferior, however to give credit where credit is due the highway construction under Eisenhower WAS a fantastic idea. But the emphasis on govt. as the driver of economic expansion stifled that expansion.

BEA National Economic Accounts

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

my point is just because it was written by a liberal doesn't mean it's not factual & highly informative.

But it certainly doesn't mean that it IS factual and informative either.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by Will

What "boom" ??? This is a MYTH. Average annual REAL GDP growth under Eisenhower was a mere 3%. Things seemed "Golden" because ANYTHING is Golden compared to World War and Depression. In 1950 and 1951 only, we experience a short boom (Truman was still in office) as we recovered from the 1945-1949 recession (that's right, in addition to the great depression, new deal economic policy managed to get us into a slump AGAIN immediately after the war). During Eisenhower's term, we experience big growth in 1955 and 1959 only, with the remaining 6 years added in giving us an average of only 3%. Lower than during the Kennedy/LBJ admin, the Reagan admin, hell, even the Carter admin.

For comparison, the number rose to 4.9 % during the 8 years of Kennedy/Johnson.

Under Kennedy/LBJ, BTW, we reversed course, cut taxes, and looked to the private sector to promote economic growth. Eisenhower's administration was the first peace time and non depression time test of New Deal tax and economic policy. It proved inferior, however to give credit where credit is due the highway construction under Eisenhower WAS a fantastic idea. But the emphasis on govt. as the driver of economic expansion stifled that expansion.

BEA National Economic Accounts

yeah I should have included the LBJ/JFK years. ok...that's fine with me. let's go back to their tax rates.

[thkauffman]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

yeah I should have included the LBJ/JFK years. ok...that's fine with me. let's go back to their tax rates.

You missed the point. Again.

The point is that lowering taxes is a proven method of spurring economic growth. It's been proven time and time again.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

Gotta love people who quote government statistics when it suits their cause & then turn right around & claim things like "the government is manipulating the unemployment numbers" or insert whatever the *cause of the day* is. do we trust government data or not? which is it

This is a false straw-man argument. I am the one quoting govt. statistics. I have never complained about the unemployment numbers. Every admin uses U3 as the standard, and we have the data for both u3 and u6 going back quite a while.

Now, on a completely separate forum where I have charted unemployment, I did discuss last year the short term effect of census employment on the unemployment figures.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by Will

This is a false straw-man argument. I am the one quoting govt. statistics. I have never complained about the unemployment numbers. Every admin uses U3 as the standard, and we have the data for both u3 and u6 going back quite a while.

Now, on a completely separate forum where I have charted unemployment, I did discuss last year the short term effect of census employment on the unemployment figures.

but do we know for a fact that these numbers wouldn't have been better had there been a higher tax on the Wealthy Elite? I think I probably know where that other forum is.

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by thkauffman

You missed the point. Again.

The point is that lowering taxes is a proven method of spurring economic growth. It's been proven time and time again.

I suggest you look at the graph & compare tax rates to economic growth again.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

let's go back to their tax rates.

Why? So we can stifle economic growth for NO significant measurable increase in revenue?

[Will]

From 1966 (first year of Data I collected) to 1980, Average Annual Revenue as a % of GDP was 17.4%

Reagan took office in 1981 amidst a horrible recession.

During his term (1981-1988) Average Annual Revenue as a % of GDP was 17.8%