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
osamanobama on 20 September 2011
mrstickball said:
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%.


yep, i believe that called the 18% rule



Around the Network
Rath on 20 September 2011
mrstickball said:
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.


I'm not entirely sure if I trust the data (the site it comes from has a fairly obvious fiscally conservative bias) but as I don't have any data to rebutt it with I'll accept that my statement might have been wrong.

Also I strongly disagree with replacing income tax with VAT/GST/NST - those (unless you get into exceptions in which case you end up with complicated systems again) are regressive taxes in essence and can completely screw over the poor while having little effect on the rich who do not spend nearly as large a portion of their income.



Kasz216 on 20 September 2011
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.



mrstickball on 20 September 2011
Rath said:
mrstickball said:
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.


I'm not entirely sure if I trust the data (the site it comes from has a fairly obvious fiscally conservative bias) but as I don't have any data to rebutt it with I'll accept that my statement might have been wrong.

Also I strongly disagree with replacing income tax with VAT/GST/NST - those (unless you get into exceptions in which case you end up with complicated systems again) are regressive taxes in essence and can completely screw over the poor while having little effect on the rich who do not spend nearly as large a portion of their income.

That is why I said a flat tax and an NST. Herman Cain has a great '9/9/9' plan. A 9% flat fax for those making above a certain percentage, a 9% NST and a 9% corporate tax.

You do need some sort of NST to ensure that those outside the system, such as tourists and illegals are paying something into the system.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Lord N on 20 September 2011
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
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%.


yep, i believe that called the 18% rule

 

This is not about tax revenue, and you know it. You're avoiding what I'm saying and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The argument was that higher tax rates would cause the rich to up and leave the country, and I think that such a notion has been utterly disproven. You talk about percentage of GDP this and actual tax revenue that, but the fact remains that the rich had to pay a lot more in taxes in the past than they do today. In marginal tax rate made no difference, then no one would be making such a big fuss about it, nor would the rich be doing all that they could to have it lowered. Neither higher taxes in the past nor tax increases during the Clinton years led to a departure of the rich. Again I ask, where would they go? Everywhere else that's developed would tax them far more heavily. If the rich want to pay the lowest taxes possible, then they'll stay right here.



 

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

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 20 September 2011
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
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%.


yep, i believe that called the 18% rule

This is not about tax revenue, and you know it. You're avoiding what I'm saying and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The argument was that higher tax rates would cause the rich to up and leave the country, and I think that such a notion has been utterly disproven. You talk about percentage of GDP this and actual tax revenue that, but the fact remains that the rich had to pay a lot more in taxes in the past than they do today. In marginal tax rate made no difference, then no one would be making such a big fuss about it, nor would the rich be doing all that they could to have it lowered. Neither higher taxes in the past nor tax increases during the Clinton years led to a departure of the rich. Again I ask, where would they go? Everywhere else that's developed would tax them far more heavily. If the rich want to pay the lowest taxes possible, then they'll stay right here.

Switzerland, Dubai...

or really anywhere... since this is talking mostly about a minium tax rate tied to Capital Gains which basically would wipe deductions that basically.... every other country in the world has... making investments as a person in the US much riskier then any other nation and a tax rate nearly as high.

25-28% on capital gains in the US, with no deductions or 21.5% in Canada where would you rather live.  (Capital gains is half of 43%.)

New Zealand doesn't even have captial gains taxes on investments that are focused in New Zealand!

 

We aren't talking about the Tax rate of the rich... we're talking about the Captial Gains tax of the rich.  Which actually was 25% under Eisenhower.  Well 25% or 50% of your capital gains aren't taxable. 

 

Worth noting... they went down until the 1970's... when they went back up and had a huge problem economics wise.  Then in 1979 they were dropped back down as income taxes rose... because a low capital gains tax is pretty vital.



benao87 on 20 September 2011

Lol at the title, just.... no.
For example look at this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14656486



Complete comic

Ail on 20 September 2011
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.

He's not asking for them to pay exhorbitanty tax rate, he's asking for them to pay the same tax rate as the middle class, basically what he wants is an AMT for people making over 1 million $ a year. ( they pay less tax right now because the majority of their revenue comes from capital gains which are taxed less for long terms capital gains).

As for the argument that they will leave the country it's a fallacy. As a US citizen making over 100k a year you can not evade the IRS, even if you move to another country and give up your US citizenship...( US citizens are based on their worldwide revenue and if you make over 100k a year and give up your US citizenship you are considered to be trying to evade taxes and still pay taxes for the next 10 years...).

Besides if taxes were such a huge issue for those people they would already be switching states like crazy and they aren't.. ( because California rich pay more taxes than Floriday rich, but still California is the state with the most rich in the US...)

 

Still I got to give crtedit to the republicans. Getting people making under 50k a year to defend the taxes rate of people making over  1million/year is kind of an amazing feat......



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Ail on 20 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
spurgeonryan said:

Wait? Millionaires pay less of a percent of there income than poorer people do! Is that what I am reading?

That's what your reading.... but it's not true.

It's a talking point created by conflating Income with Capital Gains.

 

One is a salary gained through working... in which the rich pay MUCH more.

The other, is a tax placed on investments, in which the rich ALSO pay MUCH more.

The diffrence is Rich people are more likely to make more money on investments then poor people, Therefore when the two are combined together they are being taxed  a "Lower percentage".

Aka, someone makes 10 dollars  through working and are taxed 20%.

VS someone who makes 10 dollars through working, and is taxed 20%, then makes 90 dollars through capital gains, and is taxed 10% on that... they're "only paying 15%"


 I pay a much higher amount of taxes then other people who make as much money as me using this same standard...  because I have money invested... that, even if you counted it as income wouldn't move me over to the next income bracket even though my captial gains bracket is higher then my income tax bracket, because actually, I don't have to pay ANY taxes outside of FICA or Social security.

I'm actually forced to pay MORE money for being responsible!

  Yet nobody cares about that, a case of the exact opposite happeneing... because it's not a way to target the rich.

 

 

However, the different tax rates exist for a number of good reasons.  To just list one (edit: Was wrong on number 2)

 

1)  Capital gains are much riskier.  If you work 40 hours a week, you are guranteed that money.  Capital Gains vary with the market, you could make a bunch of money only to lose it.


For tax purpose they are actually not that riskier as you can take advantage of capital losses to reduce your tax rate ( don't sell during a bad market year, keep some investments around till the next year and then sell some of those loosing investments to offset any gain you might make that good year..



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Ail on 20 September 2011
Kasz216 said:
Lord N said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
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%.


yep, i believe that called the 18% rule

This is not about tax revenue, and you know it. You're avoiding what I'm saying and scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The argument was that higher tax rates would cause the rich to up and leave the country, and I think that such a notion has been utterly disproven. You talk about percentage of GDP this and actual tax revenue that, but the fact remains that the rich had to pay a lot more in taxes in the past than they do today. In marginal tax rate made no difference, then no one would be making such a big fuss about it, nor would the rich be doing all that they could to have it lowered. Neither higher taxes in the past nor tax increases during the Clinton years led to a departure of the rich. Again I ask, where would they go? Everywhere else that's developed would tax them far more heavily. If the rich want to pay the lowest taxes possible, then they'll stay right here.

Switzerland, Dubai...

or really anywhere... since this is talking mostly about a minium tax rate tied to Capital Gains which basically would wipe deductions that basically.... every other country in the world has... making investments as a person in the US much riskier then any other nation and a tax rate nearly as high.

25-28% on capital gains in the US, with no deductions or 21.5% in Canada where would you rather live.  (Capital gains is half of 43%.)

New Zealand doesn't even have captial gains taxes on investments that are focused in New Zealand!

 

We aren't talking about the Tax rate of the rich... we're talking about the Captial Gains tax of the rich.  Which actually was 25% under Eisenhower.  Well 25% or 50% of your capital gains aren't taxable. 

 

Worth noting... they went down until the 1970's... when they went back up and had a huge problem economics wise.  Then in 1979 they were dropped back down as income taxes rose... because a low capital gains tax is pretty vital.


Once again the argument about leaving the country is a fallacy but not for the reasons most people have been using......

If you have over 100k of a revenue a year and give up your US citizenship for another one ( and you have to give it up, moving only doesn't do shit as US citizens are based on worldwide revenue) the IRS considers that you are trying to evade taxes and will still have you pay taxes for the next 10 years, even if you are no longer a US citizen .



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !