By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Millionaire tax! America only for now, so the rest of you millionaires in other coutries are safe!!!

Tagged games:

 

Hi Vgchartz millionairre! Do you want extra taxes?

Yes 31 54.39%
 
No 16 28.07%
 
I get paid in gum. 5 8.77%
 
(recycle) I am a meat popcycle. 5 8.77%
 
Total:57
mrstickball on 19 September 2011
Rath said:
Kantor said:
This will never pass a Republican congress.

It's populism at its very worst. Obama understands that he's done a pretty worthless job as President so far, and he needs to drum up support from the left so they don't go vote Nader or something.

Not everyone is as wealthy as Warren Buffett. The top 0.5% of America is significantly richer than the second 0.5%. Most of the money paid in by these people will never be seen by them again in any form.

You can't force the very wealthiest people to pay exorbitant tax rates, because they will just refuse. They'll move elsewhere, or hire yet more people to find loopholes. The only "solution" is to lump the entire middle class together and say they have become rich on the backs of the poor, to say that the majority of Americans are entitled to more than they currently get. It's a fantastic method of control.

Should he let the Bush tax cuts expire? Absolutely. Should he increase tax further? No. Should he go into this massive song and dance about it? No.


They won't be paying exorbitant tax rates. Most of them currently pay lower tax rates than people who earn less than them.

I really do agree with Obama on this one, while cutting expenses is necessary (and lets face it, some areas of your government are bloated enough that there could be significant savings) but if you're going to be serious about cutting the deficit then you need to raise revenues too.

Except they don't.

According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:

  • Top 0.1% - 22.7%
  • Top 1% - 23.7%
  • Top 10% - 20.8%
  • Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
  • Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
  • Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
  • Bottom 50% - 2.6%

That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.

I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
ImJustBayuum on 19 September 2011
mrstickball said:

Except they don't.

According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:

  • Top 0.1% - 22.7%
  • Top 1% - 23.7%
  • Top 10% - 20.8%
  • Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
  • Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
  • Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
  • Bottom 50% - 2.6%

That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.

I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.

Changing the structure of America's tax system...How costly would that be in this current volatile economic environment??



thismeintiel on 19 September 2011

Yay! More class warfare.  That will surely fix everything and get you re-elected Obama. Oh wait, no it won't.

@ chocoloco

I wouldn't put too much merit in those polls. Especially since a Repulican just won a seat in New York (of all places) that had been held by Democrats for nearly 90 years.  In a district that is 3 to 1 in favor of Democrats.



 

Allfreedom99 on 19 September 2011

Really the way President Obama has been giving a sense of such uncertainty to the American economy you could almost argue he is trying to punsih successful people and keep a crisis mentality in Americans that forces them to depend on the Government. Why else would he be refusing to do the things that would actually cause the economy to grow?




HappySqurriel on 19 September 2011
ImJustBayuum said:
mrstickball said:

Except they don't.

According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:

  • Top 0.1% - 22.7%
  • Top 1% - 23.7%
  • Top 10% - 20.8%
  • Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
  • Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
  • Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
  • Bottom 50% - 2.6%

That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.

I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.

Changing the structure of America's tax system...How costly would that be in this current volatile economic environment??

If done properly, the net benefit would be far greater than the costs ...

The reason for this is that, if you look at the number of hardworking, intelligent and educated people who are employed trying to enforce or circumvent the overly complex tax and regulatory structure and consider how much larger the economy would be if they were focusing their efforts on producing the products and services of the future, it becomes clear that that a large portion of the greatest resource in a developed nation is being wasted for no gain.

 



Around the Network
mrstickball on 19 September 2011
HappySqurriel said:
ImJustBayuum said:
mrstickball said:

Except they don't.

According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:

  • Top 0.1% - 22.7%
  • Top 1% - 23.7%
  • Top 10% - 20.8%
  • Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
  • Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
  • Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
  • Bottom 50% - 2.6%

That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.

I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.

Changing the structure of America's tax system...How costly would that be in this current volatile economic environment??

If done properly, the net benefit would be far greater than the costs ...

The reason for this is that, if you look at the number of hardworking, intelligent and educated people who are employed trying to enforce or circumvent the overly complex tax and regulatory structure and consider how much larger the economy would be if they were focusing their efforts on producing the products and services of the future, it becomes clear that that a large portion of the greatest resource in a developed nation is being wasted for no gain.

 

I can't even see a scenario that there is a cost, other than the political capital of "Hey, we're gonna end the loopholes and institute a very fair tax system". That may get people riled up, but within a few months, I think everyone would recognize it was superior.... Except for those evading the system.

The real cost would be hundreds of thousands of fly-by-night tax preparing agencies. They would be out of a job... But the reality is that most jobs like that aren't viable. The offset would be more money in peoples' hands because they weren't paying for said services and there'd be a bit of savings as the IRS would dwindle down to a minor enforcement agency rather than a harbinger of big government.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

HappySqurriel on 19 September 2011
mrstickball said:
HappySqurriel said:
ImJustBayuum said:
mrstickball said:

Except they don't.

According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:

  • Top 0.1% - 22.7%
  • Top 1% - 23.7%
  • Top 10% - 20.8%
  • Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
  • Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
  • Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
  • Bottom 50% - 2.6%

That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.

I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.

Changing the structure of America's tax system...How costly would that be in this current volatile economic environment??

If done properly, the net benefit would be far greater than the costs ...

The reason for this is that, if you look at the number of hardworking, intelligent and educated people who are employed trying to enforce or circumvent the overly complex tax and regulatory structure and consider how much larger the economy would be if they were focusing their efforts on producing the products and services of the future, it becomes clear that that a large portion of the greatest resource in a developed nation is being wasted for no gain.

 

I can't even see a scenario that there is a cost, other than the political capital of "Hey, we're gonna end the loopholes and institute a very fair tax system". That may get people riled up, but within a few months, I think everyone would recognize it was superior.... Except for those evading the system.

The real cost would be hundreds of thousands of fly-by-night tax preparing agencies. They would be out of a job... But the reality is that most jobs like that aren't viable. The offset would be more money in peoples' hands because they weren't paying for said services and there'd be a bit of savings as the IRS would dwindle down to a minor enforcement agency rather than a harbinger of big government.

It all depends on how it is measured ...

If you measure the output of the economy without consideration of the value of the work being done then the loss of a job, even an entirely pointless job, would be measured as a loss. On the other hand, if you only included the labour that was going towards the production of goods and services that people want to pay for then the loss of jobs that do not contribute to the production of these goods and services have no cost associated with them.



Lord N on 19 September 2011
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
Kantor said:

You can't force the very wealthiest people to pay exorbitant tax rates, because they will just refuse. They'll move elsewhere, or hire yet more people to find loopholes.


I'm sorry, but this is bull.

First off, where are they going to go? Every other developed country on earth (as well as some of the underdeveloped countries) has far higher tax rates than the United States. Secondly, the rich had to pay a tax rate of 91% under Eisenhower, and before Reagan's tax cuts, it was 77%, and rich people certainly weren't leaving the country en masse.

This argument gets more ridiculous every time I see it.


no they didnt

Then how might you explain this?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Seriously, if you're going to call me out, then at least do research and post sources.

you mistaking what the official tax rate was, 

and what people actually paid.

 

you said people paid 91%, they didnt. it was much much much lower than that.

and for the Reagan example do you really want to use the time of Jimmy carter, the time of stagflation as an example of why high tax rates are good?


Those are income tax rates, so they ARE what people actually paid. There are also capital gains taxes, which, while lower, would still have been higher back then than what they are today.

I said that the RICH had a tax rate of 91%, which they clearly did. It's right there in plain english for anyone to see. You haven't countered anything that I've said. No matter how you slice it, the idea that the rich will pack up and leave because of higher tax rates is bull, because they had to pay FAR higher tax rates in previous times, and guess what? They didn't go anywhere.

If you want another example, the Clinton years saw some of the highest tax increases in history, and again, the rich didn't flee the country.

As for your last statement, higher tax rates have nothing to do with stagflation. Again, the rich had far higher tax rates in the 50's, 60's, and 70's while the economy was booming, and again, Clinton raising taxes in the 90's didn't exactly destroy the economy.

 

 



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

osamanobama on 19 September 2011
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
Kantor said:

You can't force the very wealthiest people to pay exorbitant tax rates, because they will just refuse. They'll move elsewhere, or hire yet more people to find loopholes.


I'm sorry, but this is bull.

First off, where are they going to go? Every other developed country on earth (as well as some of the underdeveloped countries) has far higher tax rates than the United States. Secondly, the rich had to pay a tax rate of 91% under Eisenhower, and before Reagan's tax cuts, it was 77%, and rich people certainly weren't leaving the country en masse.

This argument gets more ridiculous every time I see it.


no they didnt

Then how might you explain this?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Seriously, if you're going to call me out, then at least do research and post sources.

you mistaking what the official tax rate was, 

and what people actually paid.

 

you said people paid 91%, they didnt. it was much much much lower than that.

and for the Reagan example do you really want to use the time of Jimmy carter, the time of stagflation as an example of why high tax rates are good?


Those are income tax rates, so they ARE what people actually paid. There are also capital gains taxes, which, while lower, would still have been higher back then than what they are today.

I said that the RICH had a tax rate of 91%, which they clearly did. It's right there in plain english for anyone to see. You haven't countered anything that I've said. No matter how you slice it, the idea that the rich will pack up and leave because of higher tax rates is bull, because they had to pay FAR higher tax rates in previous times, and guess what? They didn't go anywhere.

If you want another example, the Clinton years saw some of the highest tax increases in history, and again, the rich didn't flee the country.

As for your last statement, higher tax rates have nothing to do with stagflation. Again, the rich had far higher tax rates in the 50's, 60's, and 70's while the economy was booming, and again, Clinton raising taxes in the 90's didn't exactly destroy the economy.

 

 

again, no one was actually paying those rates



mrstickball on 20 September 2011
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
Lord N said:
Kantor said:

You can't force the very wealthiest people to pay exorbitant tax rates, because they will just refuse. They'll move elsewhere, or hire yet more people to find loopholes.


I'm sorry, but this is bull.

First off, where are they going to go? Every other developed country on earth (as well as some of the underdeveloped countries) has far higher tax rates than the United States. Secondly, the rich had to pay a tax rate of 91% under Eisenhower, and before Reagan's tax cuts, it was 77%, and rich people certainly weren't leaving the country en masse.

This argument gets more ridiculous every time I see it.


no they didnt

Then how might you explain this?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Seriously, if you're going to call me out, then at least do research and post sources.

you mistaking what the official tax rate was, 

and what people actually paid.

 

you said people paid 91%, they didnt. it was much much much lower than that.

and for the Reagan example do you really want to use the time of Jimmy carter, the time of stagflation as an example of why high tax rates are good?


Those are income tax rates, so they ARE what people actually paid. There are also capital gains taxes, which, while lower, would still have been higher back then than what they are today.

I said that the RICH had a tax rate of 91%, which they clearly did. It's right there in plain english for anyone to see. You haven't countered anything that I've said. No matter how you slice it, the idea that the rich will pack up and leave because of higher tax rates is bull, because they had to pay FAR higher tax rates in previous times, and guess what? They didn't go anywhere.

If you want another example, the Clinton years saw some of the highest tax increases in history, and again, the rich didn't flee the country.

As for your last statement, higher tax rates have nothing to do with stagflation. Again, the rich had far higher tax rates in the 50's, 60's, and 70's while the economy was booming, and again, Clinton raising taxes in the 90's didn't exactly destroy the economy.

 

 


One should note that although rates were near 90%, the actual tax revenue from everyone has generally hovered around 20% of GDP, regardless of the marginal tax rate. For example, when Reagan slashed rates, the tax revenue was still around 20%.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.