- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: EVERYONE will pay higher taxes
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:00 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:00 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Which is why every time some lefty argues for tax increase by telling me, "but, back in such and such year, they were much higher", I know I'm dealing with an idiot and the person can be summarily dismissed.
With 1970s deductions, and tax brackets adjusted for inflation, I'd HAPPILY take a 90% top marginal tax rate.
I don't mind having a real conversation about where taxes should sit in terms of rates. But, if the person doesn't even know that the rates back then came with a shite TON of special deductions, we just can't talk.
2
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:02 pm to Quintus
I don’t mind the pushback on the Amazon statement, it was off the top of my head. There are plenty of businesses that rely on subsidies, especially in their infancy. To claim there aren’t any is stupid.
Basically every renewable energy company falls into this category.
Basically every renewable energy company falls into this category.
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:05 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
ndeed. That wasn't the question. Tell us why you oppose that.
I dont
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:13 pm to SuperDad
Odds "Quintus" participates in the most expensive of all federal tax breaks... pre-tax deductions?
And I *strongly* disagree that depreciation schedule hijinks are a "tax break". It simply shifts when teh expense is deducted, not how much the deduction is.
This post was edited on 9/26/21 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:17 pm to Quintus
quote:Yet not a single one was name, nor it's balance sheets demonstrating this were shown.
There are plenty of businesses that rely on subsidies, especially in their infancy.
quote:We can talk about the ITC all day. Go tell poster Billjamin (?) how he's a huge mulit-billion dollar corporation soaking off the government. Simple question, How much tax revenue was lost due to it?
Basically every renewable energy company falls into this category.
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:19 pm to Quintus
quote:Then tell us what you do oppose, and how you'd fix it. As I originally asked... and you continue to dodge.
I dont
quote:
how exactly would you ban corporations from communicating with Congressional members? How would that be implemented?
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:28 pm to Taxing Authority
Citizens United does not ban lobbying. It also includes a detailed explanation as to how this should be regulated, which I don’t completely agree with.
It must be nice to be so satisfied with the status quo.
I will not respond to any more of your posts
It must be nice to be so satisfied with the status quo.
I will not respond to any more of your posts
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:37 pm to SuperDad
quote:"The rich don't pay their fair share like they once did".
Which is why every time some lefty argues for tax increase by telling me, "but, back in such and such year, they were much higher", I know I'm dealing with an idiot and the person can be summarily dismissed.
Far more "middle class" people are not shouldering the load they were in the 1950s when tax rates for "the rich" were much higher than they are now.
We have a tax system where too small of a minority contribute.
This post was edited on 9/26/21 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:39 pm to Quintus
Will not respond. Lol
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:40 pm to Quintus
quote:Then I have no idea what your point was.
Citizens United does not ban lobbying.
quote:
It must be nice to be so satisfied with the status quo.
I think people that organize into tax-paying corporations should keep their rights to participate in the political processes that levy those taxes. Not sure why that's unreasonable and you've made no attempt to show different. quote:Even more clearly than last time, that seems to be a wise move.
I will not respond to any more of your posts
This post was edited on 9/26/21 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 9/26/21 at 9:46 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
"Tax cuts for the rich" is another favorite.
What would be interesting (and maybe you have it) is to see alongside your share of total income taxes paid graph, a graph for share of national income, and another graph showing share of total federal taxes paid - have there been substantial changes? Also, it would be interesting to see "share of income taxes" as a function of wealth as opposed to income.
Posted on 9/26/21 at 10:01 pm to David_DJS
quote:
What would be interesting (and maybe you have it) is to see alongside your share of total income taxes paid graph, a graph for share of national income, and another graph showing share of total federal taxes paid - have there been substantial changes?
It's a bit old, but I doubt it's changed much.
quote:Not really that interesting. We don't tax wealth, for obvious reasons.
Also, it would be interesting to see "share of income taxes" as a function of wealth as opposed to income.
Posted on 9/26/21 at 10:08 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
It's a bit old, but I doubt it's changed much.
It’s the trends over the timeframe you mentioned that I thought would be interesting.
quote:
Not really that interesting. We don't tax wealth, for obvious reasons.
Well, I think it would be interesting and informative.
Posted on 9/26/21 at 10:10 pm to Taxing Authority
This one is a little nicer, since it has number of filers...
EDIT: isht, this chart is effective rates, not share of total. Nevermind.
EDIT: isht, this chart is effective rates, not share of total. Nevermind.
This post was edited on 9/26/21 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 9/26/21 at 10:16 pm to David_DJS
quote:I don't have anything back to the 50s, but you'd have trouble because of the change in AGI definitions pre-1985. It used to a WHOLE lot easier to avoid income. So if anything--that chart would look worse with a consistent definition of income.
It’s the trends over the timeframe you mentioned that I thought would be interesting.
You can infer the trend though, knowing the share of the top 10% has increased. The difference between blue and orange lines has increased over time. Below that, decreased.
quote:I'm not sure why. You'd need to have a look at A BUNCH of other variables like money supply, asset classes, unrealized vs. realized gains at a minimum to make any sense of it. "Share of wealth" has no relevance when money is created at the press of a button.
Well, I think it would be interesting and informative.
And at the end of the day it would tell you nothing about who or how much taxes were paid relative to the tax basis.
This post was edited on 9/26/21 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 9/26/21 at 10:18 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Not true, I can send my kids to community college for free if his policies work instead of having to pay for it.
Lol, so can any one that doesn’t have a straight white male as a kid.
You know how cheap community college already is?
Posted on 9/27/21 at 2:45 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I don't have anything back to the 50s, but you'd have trouble because of the change in AGI definitions pre-1985. It used to a WHOLE lot easier to avoid income. So if anything--that chart would look worse with a consistent definition of income.
This is more what I was looking for - total taxes paid as a function of income (recognizing it's just part of the picture). It still doesn't indicate trends. It would be very interesting to see the same chart for a snapshot in time 50 years ago. This was published by the Intercept.
quote:
I'm not sure why. You'd need to have a look at A BUNCH of other variables like money supply, asset classes, unrealized vs. realized gains at a minimum to make any sense of it. "Share of wealth" has no relevance when money is created at the press of a button.
Your statement implies you can create wealthy with the press of a button. I don't think that's the case. At any rate, I think it would be interesting to see the tax burden of the asset-class in relationship to the 1%. I think it's intuitive what it would look like, but it would be nice to see some credible detail.
Posted on 9/27/21 at 2:48 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Inflation is not a tax.
What an idiot
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News