The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

Only if you consider a used 13" CRT TV the same as a 80" 4k smart TV, or one small window air conditioner cooling one small room the same as central air conditioning cooling an entire house.

 

No, you are just ignoring that the wealthy pay the majority of Federal Taxes in America. Whether you like it or not, whether they get tax breaks or not, they pay the majority of all Federal taxes in the United States.

 

And if you notice on your chart, the Carter recession is the SHORTEST duration of all the charted recessions!

 

1. QED. Even when you warn them, they still walk right into the rake. Fascinating.

Remember folks, when attempting ANY discussion with a leftist, ALWAYS have a written record of what was said.

2. Every LW claim in this thread is based on specious partisan sources, every graph, every chart. I demolished them anyway, pity you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to do the same.

 

This one fumbles around trying to make a point about income versus taxable gain. Fails. Yet we should trust anything they have to say about US tax policy? I think not.

 

You already lost that point. Sorry.

 

Notice how the Right move the goalposts from "percentage share of overall income taxes than their share of income justifies" to simply a majority of Fed taxes, not counting Fed payroll taxes, once they are shown how their income and Fed taxes are both adjusted to make the share the wealthy pay look bigger!!!

 

If I had actually "fumbled" you would not have had to edit my post so drastically!!!
Thank you.

 

I'm not going to waste my time digging into BS to prove it stinks.

 

So you think there is no difference in the quality and quantity of the possessions of the rich and poor.

 

The top 30% of US income earners pay 97% of federal income tax... or any of the other iterations using other %s.

This is a matter of irrefutable fact based on IRS data, no matter how you or any other union label -laymen- want to try to derail, rationalize, fabricate, shift goalposts and waffle, as the written record of this thread shows quite clearly.

Even IF a rich man pays only a 13% rate due to capital gains, that man has paid MILLIONS of actual $$ in a single year, sometimes tens of millions, far more than anyone should have to pay in a government not run by crooks and scumbags trying to steal as much from their fellow man as possible at the end of a gun barrel. O, don't want to talk about actual dollars and only %s instead? Of course you don't, it makes the absurdly high amounts the rich actually pay that much more apparent.

This thread is -lost- for you and yours. Readers should certainly make up their minds themselves though. Nothing you or any of your ilk are going to actually address the points rational posters make, so I'll just stand on my prior posts as ENTIRELY UNREFUTED because they are.

 

I am watching you move the goalposts all over the field in vain desperation but unable to get around the fact that that the top 1% of income earners pay an even higher percentage share of overall income taxes than their share of income justifies. You brought a bowling ball to the 9th hole while wearing a jockey uniform and then wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

 

They also control most of the wealth in the nation..

In other words they get the most benefit out of the system...so they need to pay for that

 

Stop the baloney semantics. How much do the top 1% pay of federal taxes? Full stop. That's the number that really matters. Using that we find the people with incomes of $2-5 million are in the second lowest bracket after those making under $15K.

 

That was your response to THIS?

Very few people with a brain claim that the rich don't pay taxes. Thanks for that lie.

The issue is how do you fund a government. Do you squeeze the middle class and poor or ask those that can afford a few more dollars in taxes to do so...

Prior to Reagan the rich had a top tax bracket of 70% and they did FINE. Now that bracket is what...37%?

 

Carter tried to prop up the economy, and caused runaway inflation. And the economy was going down fast when Reagan was elected. That is why he won. Remember the talk back then about the malaise that was sweeping the country? You mention unemployment, but that is a lagging indicator, and 7.6 is not healthy. Especially in 1980 when few women worked and most households had only one wage earner.

 

Intensity is based on depth, not how long it lasts. Look at drop in GDP, employment, effect of interest rates and inflation. The 1980 and 81 recessions were pretty much one recession. Technically we may have shown a drop of growth, but I lived through it. And it did not stop till the tax cuts hit.

 

My response to the last line about how everything was fine with a top rate of 70%. The economy was far from fine.

 

False on many levels.

The economy was booming at 7+% real when Reagan took office.

The '81 recession was intense and the UR spike a point higher, but it was nothing like the '08-9 recession. The '81 recession was largely a function of the Fed putting the brakes on the money supply to get inflation down. Interest rates skyrocketed, but only for a short time. There was no fundamental failure of whole sectors of the economy like the '08-09 recession, which was far longer and far more severe in terms of damage done.

Plus under Reagan we embarked upon a massive multi-year stimulus program, largely in the form of military spending. After the limited stimulus in '09, when had austerity for four years thanks to the Republicans.

 

The economy was was it was but the wealthy were hardly affected by it...THEY were doing fine

 

See my post above. Both the relatively mile '80 and more severe '81 recessions were the result of Fed chairman Paul Volcker (appointed by Carter) putting the brakes on the money supply, which sent interest rates skyrocketing which caused the recession. When inflation cooled and the brakes eased and interest rates came down, the economy came strongly back. This was true in late '80 and early '81 were the economy was growing at 7+% real when Reagan took office, and in '82.

Had little if anything to do with tax policy. But the RW fake news propaganda media spins it that way as part of their tax cut mythology. What had more to do with it was the massive stimulus spending in the form of Reagan's military buildup.

 

I did to. I was in DC had just graduated from a good college with good grades but couldn't find a decent job. Then I got hired by a "beltway bandit" as a result of Reagan's massive military spending increases.

Reagan's stimulus spending helped me out, and the economy.

 

Reagan inherited a recession but proceeded to borrow and expand government via military spending. I thought $4.0B was astronomical.

Up until Obama, the staggering national debt was caused by republican presidents. <insert Congress argument here>

The reality is that taxes are paid by those who earn about average income. The below average pay nothing or are subsidized.

Now we face a debt of $20T. When will the credit limit of the US be maxed out? So far, we are the best economy in the world --but the credit has to end sometime. We can inflate our way (see Quantitative Easing) but that will devalue USD.

Eventually, reasonable taxes will need to be applied and/or a serious reduction in government obligations. Everyone will pay one way or another in the future. Perhaps our children and our children's children.

 

Most of the Obama Debt came from spending programs and revenue decreases HE inherited...so you can add that to the Republican toll as well.

As far as The below average pay nothing or are subsidized.

When accounting for payroll taxes, sales taxes etc...the poor actually pay a larger share of their income in taxes than the rich do

As far as that 20T in debt...In regards to share of GDP is no worse than the debt we came out of WWII with...and we survived that quite nicely. Was that debt catastrophic? Did it "kill us to pay that back"?

Nope.

We never did pay it back...inflation made it nearly meaningless over time

 

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS

They had in fact 7% of the total Wealth and it has evolved to more than 20% today. Thus tripling over a period of a quarter century. The best the super-rich have EVER had in America since the end of the 19th century!

So, it's nothing new. The US is simply repeating its sad history of Income Disparity

And the Poverty Threshold has only started to reduce itself - and then only slightly. Still, more than 40% of Americans live below that threshold. That's more than the population of California and, say, Idaho combined.

MY POINT?

Everything in economics is a matter of statistical comparison and interpretation - this latter leaving much room for debate ...