Income Inequality in America

So, if taking risks is inherently valuable, what do you think of bank robbers?

 

One solution is to restore pre-1980 tax rates on the rich, and use that money to create badly needed govt jobs and increase the benefit amounts for Social Security and veterans.

 

Letting free markets decide wealth distribution is like letting a hurricane decide hurricane damage, while taking no action to defend against it.

 

And when that true national budget surplus in the US existed, taxes on the top income bracket were 91%. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the overwhelming majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the rich.

 

Risk of property you own of course. Not risk that you may go to jail. Don't be silly. Why would you risk losing 100k you have sitting in the bank if there was no return coming? Wouldn't you just blow the money instead?

- - - Updated - - -

The effective tax rate at that time? You seem to forget the deduction mountain and low corporate tax. Ike didn't, that is why when he called for a tax cut at the end of his presidency he wanted loopholes closed too. Close loopholes and lower the marginal rate...sound like someone else you know? JFK, Reagan, Romney etc..

 

Spamming links, weak. Links you were too much of a chicken to defend against refutations in a thread YOU STARTED, even weaker.

It's kind of a non sequitur to this post anyways: Government spending increases land rents and thus enriches those who own land at the expense of others.

Care to address that?

 

Property taxes are used to pay for it, care to address that?

 

I have no problem with taxing the rich at a more progressive rate.

BTW, do you have the break down of marginal rate brackets of that day?

 

I started what thread?

Did you read all of my post and the link I put up?

 

Will you be OK with raising your own taxes? When a mom and pop shop finally sells their business and looks to retire, how much should they pay your government? 40%, 50%? More? SHould they get upset later when they see government employees on strike for having to contribute 5% to their lavish pensions?

 

Property taxes get only a portion of the land rent created by government spending.

Care to address that?

 

Mom and Pop? Most of the time the top marginal rate of small business owners is far below the rate at the top earning bracket. In addition selling a business more likely recoups investment in stock plus some capital gains, which is always lower than regular income tax rates.

BTW, I voted for individuals who ran on the need to raise taxes, including my own. In my opinion all taxes at every level of government should be progressive income taxes. Land, property and sales taxes are regressive and should be eliminated in favor of progressive income taxes.

 

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

 

No, I didn't, because you edited your post to remove one of the links and added stuff while I was responding.

 

They also have to risk their property, and get paid for delayed gratification. After all, will you give me $500 if I promise to give you back $500 a few years from now?

 

Effective tax rate is irrelevant. We didn't need high taxes nearly as much in the 50s as we do now. Raise the top bracket tax to pre-Reagan damage years, and close every loophole. Then, there WILL BE NO EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Effective tax rates are nothing but the effects of open loopholes.

 

Maybe, but not all the time, and not even most of the time. The income tax rate hits small business owners all the time, you are talking to one.

well at least you want your own taxes increased. As long as you are calling for middle tax increases and tax increases for the poor etc.. then that is fair at least. However, why should the rich pay more? What has the government done well do you think to justify more money?

 

Taking a risk and breaking the law are uncomparable in this situation. While both may be risky, one is productive the other destructive, opposite ends of the spectrum. The correlation is invalid.

 

Thank you. In my opinion, the top bracket should be adjusted for inflation. The top bracket starting in 1952/53 was $400,000. Adjusted for inflation that would be $3,500,000 in todays dollars. All over that amount should be taxed between 50% and 90% as far as I am concerned.

 

Why would I care about your links? You've already demonstrated you are unwilling to defend the content therein against rebuttals:

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/311755-critique-single-tax-system-lvt.html

You're just spamming.

Care to address the content of my post that government spending increases land rents and thus enriches those who own land at the expensive of others? No?

 

I agree with you, but I would start at the 1980 pre-Reagan rate of 70%, and then go up. In a few very high income cases, I would go well above 90%

 

Do their taxes go up with their property value?

\Are not rents valuable? Why should only those who can afford to buy get a place? Renting is a good option for many people not ready to commit to a purchase.

 

More tax on the poor? Middle income folks? No, not by a long shot. In my opinion familial income of $6/7,000 per person should pay NO INCOME TAXES. At about $40K 5%, $45K 8%, $50K 12%, $55K 15%, $60K 20%, $65K 25%, $70K 30%, 75K 35% or something like that.

 

Wow, much less then current taxes. So...big tax cut for everyone, and then a massive tax increase on the rich to pay for it?

 

Arent you worried the massive growth during the Reagan years will be undone?