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

Sorry, I do not stoop down to answering cheap shot loaded questions.

Refine your question in a manner commensurate with your education, and I'd be happy to answer it.

 

I didn't' say we did.

I don't agree. I think we should, and as The nation will eventually drift more and more to the left, that day will come.

It will work, and there is no dodge.

If the upper 50% own 97% of the nation's wealth, then what is fair is that they pay 97% of the tax burden.

 

In the 90’s, It took four years to eliminate a $255 billion deficit, and that’s yesterday dollars, thus, adjusted to inflation, $538 billion.

Source; U.S. Inflation Calculator, 1993 - 2023

FY 2023 Deficit; $1.693 Trillion

Question; How many years it would take to balance today’s budget?

Answer; At least 10 years, and conservatively, with Receipts and Outlays at 20% of GDP.

 

Sorry, votes cannot ever be a commodity, a corporatocracy would be antithetical to democracy. .

 

The Rich tend to be Leftists, I could care less if they raise their taxes, they won't collect the taxes, anyway, they seldom do.

But, I am tired of Bribed Joe's Inflation tax on the American People brought on by his wild debt spending.

Market Now More Hawkish Than The Fed As June Rate-Cut Odds Fade

'It's not just re-igniting inflation fears, The Fed may have another problem... something is afoot in the funding markets...'

Bribed Joe's big fat mess.

Source: Bloomberg

'...and more worryingly, inflation signals are flashing red once again...'

' The probability of a quarter-point reduction in June briefly dropped below 50% on Monday.'

 

Is there no limit to your greed? Now you want to tax wealth (not just income) for which taxes have ALREADY been paid when it was earned? Lol. I guarantee you, I won't be here for it. Few others will either.

 

exactly, who do you think pays for Walmarts low wages... tax payers

"Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs " 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?pagewanted=all

"Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011."

"Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid."

an interesting Article, Walmart claims Healthcare raising by 15% a year back in 2005 under complete republican control...

 

True. You have merely decided not to know the fact that that is exactly what government does when it issues and enforces privileges like land titles, bank licenses, and IP monopolies for rich, greedy, privileged private parasites.

Except on the part of the privileged?

Nonsense.

 

You don't think it a little odd that you accuse ordinary people of greed, and not the people who have amassed fortunes in the tens or even hundreds of billions without making any commensurate contribution to wealth production?

What makes you think it was earned, or that any taxes were paid on it? Most large fortunes consist of unrealized and unearned capital gains that have never been taxed. The stepped up cost basis for inherited assets guarantees those gains have never been taxed either. Not double taxed. Not single taxed. NEVER taxed.

Clear?

 

One thing I have learned in three decades of economic discussions on the Internet: if you oppose injustice, those who profit from that injustice will accuse you of envy every time.

 

The market calculates for us.

Right. Fortunately, economics has the answer: the entire value of all desirable public services and infrastructure ends up as land rent, because the supply of land is fixed (Henry George Theorem). THAT'S WHY LAND COSTS SO MUCH.

The rich guy may or may not have earned his wealth. The landowner definitely has not earned the land rent. That's the key fact to understand.

Because people refuse to know the fact that the rich overwhelmingly got that way not by production, but by privilege.

 

Your post doesn't mention unrealized gains - at all. As my response indicated the current tax system allows mechanisms for the rich to exploit unrealized gains without having to pay tax that would be due if they were recognized. The key (as always) in these arguments is to lower the rate and broaden the base so that non cash forms of income are taxed at rates more or less equivalent to the cash rate and hence there's no artificial incentive to prefer one form of income source over another.

 

Do you also claim -- as people did at the time -- that when people owned slaves, and got money for the labor their slaves performed, that it was the slave owners who earned the money, and not the slaves? Do you claim, as evil, lying sacks of $#!+ claimed at the time, that the abolitionists were motivated by class envy for slave owners?

You need to take a few months off work and think about the ideological company you keep.

 

While you all argue about how much each bracket pays, you miss the points.



EVEN WITH taking more and more if the fruits of our labor, they have also spent us into a crazy amount if debt.

But they got you all cheering for your political team, failing to see they are robbing you blind.

 

Reduce the tax rate, broaden the tax base and minimize deductions. Yes, the very rich in America pay every high (exorbitant) income tax rates but only a small percentage of their total annual increase in wealth is recognized by the tax system as 'income'. I'd be quit happy for Jeff Benoz to be in the pay 24% tax bracket. Just so long as he also paid 24% on his capital gains! Same thing for real estate. Over a certain value? Let the owners choose. They can use actuarial tables to make annual payments or pay nothing and let the total amount be paid by their estate.

Hell, I'd be happy if every taxpayer in the US was on a single federal income tax rate, even the poorest! Lets say 24% on the proviso you could also put a cap on total annual deductions as either a % of that rate or as a cash amount based on your declared income. Let the poor get deductions that take them back to about what they would have been paying earlier but the more you earn the less (as a proportion) of your income you can write off.

In summery treat all forms of income more or less equally, no special pleadings, no 'Well my business is special' exceptions! Let capital be invested purely on the basis of the potential rate of return not concessional taxation.

 

I can't read your link. It requires subscription. That said, it was almost a quarter century ago. It is also a significant divergence from the discussion and would require a major shift towards healthcare discussions. And I'm convinced you wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about there either.

 

Problem is, you not only incorrectly call recipients of large unearned incomes "high earners," you also falsely claim they are, "the rich," and pay most of "the taxes."

It was done to distract people's attention from the injustice of privilege, so that the privileged could continue to enjoy their privileges undisturbed.

If you are claiming that the recipients of large incomes are paying the bulk of the US federal income tax, say that. Don't constantly and falsely claim that "the rich pay most of the taxes."

No, the top 1% of income recipients typically earn very little of their income by commensurate contributions to production. They merely own the most valuable privileges.

Warren Buffett is merely very astute at discerning which greedy, privileged parasites will be legally entitled to steal the most from honest people, and at buying a piece of that action at favorable prices.

That's the wrong question. It would be fair if honest working people were not robbed at all to pay for subsidies to the privileged, and if the privileged had to repay all of the subsidies they are given.

That is just another bald falsehood from you. I have identified the relevant facts in clear, simple, grammatical English. You merely choose not to know those facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

 

Why should income that people earn by their productive contributions be taxed at all, and why should any income that people obtain by dint of government-issued and -enforced privilege not be repaid to the government and community that gave that subsidy to the privilege holders in the first place?

 

One of the biggest loopholes, which almost no one seems to know about, is the stepped-up cost basis of inherited assets. If grandpa bought a parcel of land for $1K that is now worth $10M, and bequeaths it to his worthless grandson, gramps never paid any tax on the $9,999K increase in value, and the cost basis is increased to the value at the time of the estate settlement. So if the heir turns around and immediately sells it for $10M, he pays no income or capital gains tax on it whatever. NONE. The entire $9,999K is never taxed as income at all. So much for all the stupid lies about wealth or estate taxes being "double taxation."

 

Your confirmation bias is the highest I think I've ever witnessed. You have definitely taken the blue pill. Get a clue. Wake up. You can't even seem to think your way passed socialist propaganda? You see evidence of class warfare everywhere you look. You have obviously been thoroughly brainwashed and the effort it would take to deprogram you back to sanity is well beyond my available lifespan. You have no ability to assess mathematical and statistical data. You have no understanding of economics. You could do with an concerted long term study in Philosophy as your logic is hopelessly flawed. Spare us the socialist obfuscations. It's been tried and tried again and it never works. Perhaps you should start by going off and figuring out WHY it has never worked. When you come to a revelation, then get back to us. Obviously there must be SOME reason why it has never worked? Until then, put aside your judgement as to what you interpret as FAIR. Make sure what you are proposing (with your intent to FIX the "unfairness"), will even accomplish what you believe it will.

 

You mean people should be taxed according to their ability to pay, one of the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy (the other being "beneficiary pay")??

Careful. You're not allowed to make sense on this topic.

"For the preservation of property being the end [i.e., goal] of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property ... It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it."
-- John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government

 

For your info, here’s the main reason why my sole proprietorship grossed 373K last year:

CONNECTIONS, high-ranking government officials, Fed/State/Local.

 

You said wealth earlier. Wealth and income are different things. Wealth is acquisitions over time earned income is what you are paid to do your Job whatever that job uncapitlized gains from appreciation of real estate or other investments are not income until they are sold.

 

Contentless tripe.

I'm the one giving out the red pills here, and I will thank you to remember it.

Right back atcha.

I have stated many times that socialism is even worse than capitalism, and I have explained why. You just ignore all that and repeat your contentless tripe.

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

Contentless tripe.

I minored in math, including statistics, at an internationally respected university.

I have taught it at the post-secondary level.

I hold a degree in philosophy, with honors, from the same internationally respected university.

Are you capable of learning anything from being proved hilariously wrong about me, over and over again?

See above. I have not said anything that could honestly be interpreted as socialist.

I have explained why it has never worked, and never can, except on a small-scale, consensual basis, like Mondragon (which you could Google to advantage) and the Israeli kibbutzim.

Contentless tripe.

It has worked on a small-scale, voluntary basis, as stated above. It cannot work by compulsion, on a national scale.

Why, when my judgment of what is fair is far more honest and accurate than yours?

What I advocate -- which is not socialism, and which I very much doubt you can describe accurately -- has worked every time it has been tried, as long as and to the extent that it has been tried.

 

I did a post on this at the moment there's no Federal death duties or income tax paid on inherited property below the 9.3 million USD base line and only marginal a tax paid on amounts above that level.