HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » In My View, The Wealthies...

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:49 AM

 

In My View, The Wealthiest Should Pay At Least 90% of Our Taxes.

According to the New York Times, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".

Therefore, I believe, they should be paying 90% of taxes.

Agree or Disagree?

If you disagree, what percent should they pay (or you if your one of them, lol)?

54 replies, 3135 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply In My View, The Wealthiest Should Pay At Least 90% of Our Taxes. (Original post)
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 OP
Stargazer99 Aug 2015 #1
Newest Reality Aug 2015 #2
flamin lib Aug 2015 #3
former9thward Aug 2015 #21
flamin lib Aug 2015 #27
former9thward Aug 2015 #28
flamin lib Aug 2015 #30
Nye Bevan Aug 2015 #29
Doctor_J Aug 2015 #4
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #7
hunter Aug 2015 #5
hifiguy Aug 2015 #6
former9thward Aug 2015 #22
hifiguy Aug 2015 #23
former9thward Aug 2015 #26
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #34
former9thward Aug 2015 #51
clarice Aug 2015 #8
taught_me_patience Aug 2015 #9
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #35
TexasMommaWithAHat Aug 2015 #42
Lurker Deluxe Aug 2015 #49
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #50
Lurker Deluxe Aug 2015 #52
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #54
stevenleser Aug 2015 #10
Munificence Aug 2015 #13
stevenleser Aug 2015 #15
hack89 Aug 2015 #11
stevenleser Aug 2015 #14
hack89 Aug 2015 #16
stevenleser Aug 2015 #17
taught_me_patience Aug 2015 #19
stevenleser Aug 2015 #20
hifiguy Aug 2015 #24
taught_me_patience Aug 2015 #18
Recursion Aug 2015 #32
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #36
hack89 Aug 2015 #41
RadiationTherapy Aug 2015 #43
hack89 Aug 2015 #44
RadiationTherapy Aug 2015 #45
hack89 Aug 2015 #46
RadiationTherapy Aug 2015 #47
hack89 Aug 2015 #48
lpbk2713 Aug 2015 #12
1939 Aug 2015 #25
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #37
Recursion Aug 2015 #31
Recursion Aug 2015 #33
grahamhgreen Aug 2015 #38
Recursion Aug 2015 #39
ileus Aug 2015 #40
questionseverything Aug 2015 #53

Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:52 AM

1. Since the military is keeping other countries from taking their wealth away from them

They ought to be responsible for the cost of protecting them....no free lunch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:58 AM

2. Well, the upkeep

of carrying them around on our backs is exorbitant. At least horses get rest and water and meal comprised of more than crumbs.

If they can't pay their way for all the services our covert socialism provides, then they could at least move out of our attic and get their own place.

It seems that, historically, cultures that go to the extreme this wipe themselves out, so we all go together as the wealthy create more scarcity in order to preserve their freedoms and the Serfs end up with no more energy, resources or motivation to continue carrying their water and serving their citadels of lush safety.

If we can't get the golden, fattened parasites off of our collective backs, we all go together, so it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 12:10 PM

3. The tax rate in the '50 on income over $5 mil was 92% after many brackets below that level.

Adjusted for inflation that would be $44 mil today. There was a truly graduated progressive tax structure that allowed us to build the best, bar none the best, highway system in the world. It allowed us to completely eliminate one disease from the face of the earth and virtually eliminate measles, mumps, rubella, tuberculosis and polio from the US. It allowed us to export vaccines and doctors instead of guns.

Today the tax structure only taxes "earned income" with only 2 brackets and "unearned income" at one constant 15%.

Not everything about the '50s was great, but the truly progressive income tax worked for everybody and everybody paid a fair share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 07:14 PM

21. You want to go to the 1950s size of government?

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Federal budget in 1951 was 45,000,000,000. In 2015 it was 3,759,000,000,000. 1950s government was 1.2% the size of present federal government. You can't have one without the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:12 PM

27. Adjust that for inflation.

Then come back and we can talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:19 PM

28. The White House says they did adjust it.

To the extent feasible, the data have been adjusted to provide consistency with the 2016 Budget and to provide comparability over time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I used the data from their Table 1.1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:26 PM

30. Hmmm, appears you're right. I wonder what it looks like when compared to GDP. I'll have a look and

compare income v expenditures as a % of GDP and get back to ya'. I anticipate a different perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:32 PM

29. No, please try to get your facts right.

The top rate of tax on capital gains and qualified dividends is 23.8% (20% plus a 3.8% Obamacare surcharge). Significantly higher than "one constant 15%".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 03:35 PM

4. welcome back, ghg

 

Haven't seen you in awhile. I'm right with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:15 PM

7. Thanks Doc!

 

Been a crazy busy year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 03:48 PM

5. They get most of the perks of this society...

... they should pay most of the bills.

Anyone making a minimum living wage or less probably shouldn't be paying any taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:02 PM

6. I am strongly for bringing back the marginal rates of the Ike Age,

 

adjusted for inflationand with the most egregious loopholes closed, and getting corporations to pay the share they paid in those days - 30%+ of federal income takes

The top marginal rate for individuals under the General was 90%. That sounds about right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:11 PM

22. Do you like the size of federal government in the Ike Age?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:17 PM

23. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

 

The tax burden was apportioned FAIRLY under FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK and LBJ. Even Nixon, Ford and Carter it was far more fair than it is now. You do remember Zombie King Reagan and his voodoo economics, don't you? Let the rich have all they want, to hell with everyone else.

There's no reason MORE revenue could not be collected under FAIR tax policies than is now being realized. In fact I'd bet that fair taxation, strongly enforced, would leave the government rolling in money and a significant rate cut for working people could be had. Combine that with a reduction of military expenditures to sane levels and this country would be prosperous and a far better place.

See Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Galbraith, Chang.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:11 PM

26. Almost no one paid those rates.

It did not kick in until $4 million in today's dollars. There were extensive deductions and loopholes. Politically Congress lowered tax rates and closed those loopholes. We will not see the 50s again. In the 50s the U.S. produced 60% of the world's industrial production. When that is happening you can do alot of stuff. We will never see anything close to that in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 03:59 AM

34. What will we see? What will you fight for?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:44 PM

51. I am a realist.

Scores of nations can now do what only we could 50 years ago. We will not stop jobs from going overseas. We need to greatly expand our social safety net to deal with our increasingly stagnant economy. That will not happen with some war on the rich. We need to drastically reduce our military operations to pay for it. That will result in a major recession but that will come to an end eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:25 PM

8. I actually think that they already do. could be wrong. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:32 PM

9. "Now own more wealth than bottom 90%" does not equal "own 90% of the wealth"

 

The 1% own 40% of the wealth in the United States.

But, in the United States, we do not tax wealth directly, so the notion that the %of wealth should equate to the %in taxes is a moot notion.

The top 1% share of income is about 20% and share of income tax is about 45%. Seems pretty fair to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:02 AM

35. Why tax income instead of wealth? Seems arbitrary to me. In fact, it seems regressive.

 

Since the poor have more income than wealth. Income tax unfairly burdens the poor, it seems to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 08:22 AM

42. Which countries tax wealth instead of income?

Wealth includes things you own

You have a $300,000 house and it's taxed at a rate of 10%. That's $30,000 every year. Pretty soon, you won't own that house.

No, income should be taxed, but ALL income should be taxed at progressive rates. The problem now is too much income isn't taxed because of loopholes in the tax law or because the income is hidden offshore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 11:23 AM

49. Yea .. that'll help

Taxing wealth is crazy.

So I bust my ass, live below my means, save so I can retire .... you take some percentage of that.

Someone else spends every dime they ever make and never owns anything ... he pays no wealth tax.

Uhhh, no.

Income tax on low wages should be eliminated, I would push that threshold to 15k before any income tax kicks in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #49)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:26 PM

50. How bout taxing wealth over 1 billion? Just to help pay for the wars

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:47 PM

52. So ...

Wealth.

Corporate wealth? If not, everyone will just be a corporation.

If so, corporations just pass along costs to consumers. Tax what wealth? Over a billion? That will hit any large corporation, hell some drilling rigs cost 750 million ... each. You will simply pay that cost at the pump. Football team? Pay it at the ticket window.

There is very little that you can tax when it comes to wealth that will not just be directly passed on to the consumer, so you may as well just do a VAT and get on with it.

Instead of taxing to pay for wars, how about we just stop fighting wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 04:33 PM

54. In that case, why not eliminate worker income tax and only tax corps?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:36 PM

10. Here is the funny thing. I had that conversation once with a Republican and it was great...

 

... I said the same thing, the rich should pay 90% of taxes if they have 90% of the income.

The Republican said all kinds of stuff about how bad my suggestion was. It would kill the economy, etc.

I smiled and said, do you think we should have a flat tax?

He said "Yes".

I said, OK, lets assume all income in the US amounts to one million dollars.
And that the wealthiest earn 900,000 and the rest earn 100,000, that's 90% for the wealthiest and 10% for everyone else, just like the reports say the current ratio is.

He said "OK, yes, I see that".

I said OK, now apply a 10% flat tax to those amounts. So the wealthy together would pay 90,000 and everyone else 10,000.
Guess what percentage of the overall taxes it means the wealthy pay?

He got this funny look at his face and he said, "OK Steve, you got me."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:46 PM

13. We do

not pay taxes on "wealth" and that is where he could have torn you apart for being ignorant to that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Munificence (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:50 PM

15. If you read what I wrote, I said income. So no, there was nothing for him to tear me apart on. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:38 PM

11. The top 2.5% of tax filers payed 50% of all income taxes

the bottom 63% of tax filers paid 6.2% of all income taxes.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

We don't tax wealth in America. Nor do we want to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:49 PM

14. Not enough. Not if the top 1% earned 90% of the income. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:50 PM

16. So how much is enough? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:51 PM

17. At the very least, a flat ratio which we don't get now primarily because

 

investment income is taxed at a lower rate than salary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:56 PM

19. Completely wrong. see my post below.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:59 PM

20. Not completely wrong. I'll respond when I get back to a computer. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:19 PM

24. Yet the reichwingers always talk about the "dignity of work"

 

while making sure their dividends and capital gains are taxed at a fraction of the rate the working man/woman's wages are taxed at. i hear you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:54 PM

18. The top 1% earn 22% of income

 

http://inequality.org/income-inequality/

Nowhere near 90%. Also, they pay 45% of income tax. Double your ratio. Seems pretty fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:29 PM

32. They didn't. The top 1% have wealth that exceeds the bottom 90%

Note that the top 1% by wealth are not necessarily the top 1% by income, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:08 AM

36. Seems to me that wealth is exactly what we should be taxing. Taxing wealth would encourage spending.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:37 AM

41. So we punish those that save

Every year I would pay a tax on my savings, house and retirement accounts? Because that is where my wealth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 09:36 AM

43. Taxes are a mutual investment. If you see them as "punishment" or "theft"

then there is no percentage you would likely feel comfortable with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RadiationTherapy (Reply #43)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 09:51 AM

44. I willingly pay a lot of taxes

I just question the wisdom of a policy that steers people towards spending instead of saving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 10:32 AM

45. I suppose. You used the word "punish" which I found to be anti-tax in general.

Either way, thank you for your willingness to pay taxes and congratulations on having assets enough to qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RadiationTherapy (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 10:42 AM

46. I am not rich if that is what you are implying

is that going to be the front lines of this particular battle - those who have any assets vs those who have none? We have wandered far from making the 1% pay their fair share don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 11:15 AM

47. My congratulations aren't implying anything except a bit of childish envy on my part.

I admit to wishing I earned and owned enough to complain about taxes or worry about their increase. As it is, I continue to work hard and do the best I can for my family. Good luck to all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RadiationTherapy (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 11:17 AM

48. Ok. Good luck in return. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:42 PM

12. Several Fortune 500 Corps pay no taxes at all.




And this scam should stop right now. WE are paying their freight.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 09:03 PM

25. Changing the subject of personal income taxes to corporate income taxes NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1939 (Reply #25)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:08 AM

37. Corporations are people, my freind.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:28 PM

31. Taxing wealth rather than income is difficult

And can have a lot of unintended consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 11:32 PM

33. The top quintile pays 70% of personal income taxes and receives 50% of personal income

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:10 AM

38. But does that include capital gains income?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:19 AM

39. Yes, both in the income and the tax categories

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

(This is 2011's where they make that more explicit. 2012's report should be out in a couple of months. I have no idea why it takes CBO this long.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 07:04 AM

40. That would work for two or three days...

Then they'd be poor, and Uncle Sam would buy another 23 jet fighters and a black SUV, and we'd be back to paying our regular tax rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Aug 28, 2015, 01:49 PM

53. i do not think the govt should ever tax more than 50% while the taxpayer is alive

estate taxes are a whole different story

there is no fairer way to tax than the "death tax"

the heirs have already enjoyed a lifetime of privilege, plus there is already a 10 million buck exemption and the dead don't miss the money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread