Many of those rich advantages are controllable.
How about a 95% inheritance tax across the board?
How about a 95% inheritance tax across the board?
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
Seconded.
Nah 100% the heirs did nothing to earn that money so let the government take it all.
Look, your tax system, counting income and payroll, state and federal, is very mildly progressive:
The top 2% do not pay anything like 50% of the total.
In fact, not even the top 10% quite pay 50%. They pay 48% of taxes and they earn 45% of income. Progressive by a whisker.
Don't be fooled by Republican talking points that only take income taxes into account. And you don't need to feel too virtuous about how you're helping America get through the crisis if your federal income tax does go up to 38% or so. In Eisenhower's extremely prosperous America the top rate was 92%, with 25% on capital gains.
Looks like they're gonna let sequestration happen. All the defense contractors are worried now about how deep the cuts are going to go.
Look, your tax system, counting income and payroll, state and federal, is very mildly progressive:
The top 2% do not pay anything like 50% of the total.
In fact, not even the top 10% quite pay 50%. They pay 48% of taxes and they earn 45% of income. Progressive by a whisker.
Don't be fooled by Republican talking points that only take income taxes into account. And you don't need to feel too virtuous about how you're helping America get through the crisis if your federal income tax does go up to 38% or so. In Eisenhower's extremely prosperous America the top rate was 92%, with 25% on capital gains.
Interesting post, I suppose. It would be interesting to see what all the other taxes are in here that make up what people are paying. My post was regarding federal and state taxes which I don't need your graph to show me as there are very simple tax brackets available to look at which clearly state exactly what I put in the post. The next largest tax I would have to assume is property taxes in most states or maybe the aggregate of sales tax over a year.
And the though that the gov't is entitled to 92% of any income is ridiculous. Furthermore, I wasn't feeling virtuous, I was stating annoyance because we don't have a taxation problem. Take the 92% and that will still not help solve the current problem. Spending is the problem. The whole argument about the current situation over the fiscal cliff is just something (that will happen) to make dems feel better about themselves.
Wow.
With just a quick search I found this from the CBO (who I'm sure many on here were spouting during the ACA debate as a good source) that goes against what you're spouting.
Isn't that from The Washington Times?
Federal only. State and local taxes are highly regressive:
(Washington Post)
I'm also not sure whether your article, though it says 'total tax burden', is only talking about the income tax. (Its links to the CBO don't work). That's a standard sleight-of-hand in the right-wing press.
As I said, your tax system as a whole - federal, state, local, income, payroll and everything else - is very slightly progressive.
I know it feels good to imagine that your hard work and enterprising spirit is propping up all these work-shy scroungers, problem is it's not actually true.
righties always ignore payroll taxes in these discussions 
I agree, actually. Though it does blow out the water the conservative argument about 'high' (i.e. Clinton-level) rates retarding economic growth and impoverishing everyone. Growth was fine in the fifties.
Cali Red said:
Why?
You spent a lot of money on the wars, and a lot of money on fiscal stimulus to avoid a depression. And you spend a shitload on healthcare. The first two were (one would hope) temporary, and aside from that your government doesn't spend much compared to most advanced countries.
"The current problem" is mostly the Bush tax cuts:
(Washington Post again)
Why the Republicans can't propose spending cuts
righties always ignore payroll taxes in these discussions
You mean the other taxes the gov't requires you to pay? Oh wait, that's right, we can't expect anyone other than the "millionaires and billionaires" to pay for services they use. My bad.
And Plech, as much as I'd love to read a couple more condescending posts from you it's not needed. Your graphs and charts are quite lovely. Also, your references to when taxes were X or spending was Y are also quite enthralling but irrelevant. As the situation stands the US is spending about 1.2 trillion more than it takes in annually so even if I were to just ignore the current 16 trillion in debt, there's still a problem with spending. Blaming the Bush era tax cuts, also called blaming the Bush (which have been extended already under this President) isn't the problem. Ending them will do next to nothing for current deficit. So please, feel free to link up a few more graphs that says everything is rosey.
is the best response to that.
Hey CR
The point of this discussion is that"millionaires and billionaires" who caused the defecit to blow up are also happy to let those at the bottom to pay for their 'spending'.
The main cause is reduced tax revenue. A combination of a more progressive tax structure and more stimulus spending will help bring down the overall defecit.
The economy will grow and yes...your "millionaires and billionaires" will also make a lot more money. The higher tax rates?...they will hardly mind.
EDIT: Plech's post #413 is right on the money.
The point of this discussion is that"millionaires and billionaires" who caused the defecit to blow up are also happy to let those at the bottom to pay for their 'spending'.
The main cause is reduced tax revenue. A combination of a more progressive tax structure and more stimulus spending will help bring down the overall defecit.
The economy will grow and yes...your "millionaires and billionaires" will also make a lot more money. The higher tax rates?...they will hardly mind.
EDIT: Plech's post #413 is right on the money.
- Well, yeah. Not because he wanted to, but because the Republicans held the middle class tax cuts for ransom.
...also the GOP threatened to with hold unemployment benefits.
"Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts."
Pff we all know that reality has a well known liberal bias so I wouldn't be listening to facts anyways.
Cali, I don’t mean to be condescending, but you’re wrong. US taxes are historically low and barely progressive. Your social spending on everything but healthcare is very low by comparison with other advanced nations.
It’s true that raising taxes across the board right now would be dangerous, with demand still so low. But once you’re out the slump, the deficit can be sorted and the debt stabilised simply by reversing Bush’s massive regressive tax cut (and avoiding big wars in remote countries).
It’s true that raising taxes across the board right now would be dangerous, with demand still so low. But once you’re out the slump, the deficit can be sorted and the debt stabilised simply by reversing Bush’s massive regressive tax cut (and avoiding big wars in remote countries).
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Inheritance and estate taxes
Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $253 billion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010b).
It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservative and libertarian activists behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way. However, a study (Kenny et al., 2006) of the financial support for eliminating inheritance taxes discovered that 18 super-rich families (mostly Republican financial donors, but a few who support Democrats) provide the anti-government activists with most of the money for this effort. (For more infomation, including the names of the major donors, download the article from United For a Fair Economy's Web site.)
Actually, ultra-conservatives and their wealthy financial backers may not have to bother to eliminate what remains of inheritance taxes at the federal level. The rich already have a new way to avoid inheritance taxes forever -- for generations and generations -- thanks to bankers. After Congress passed a reform in 1986 making it impossible for a "trust" to skip a generation before paying inheritance taxes, bankers convinced legislatures in many states to eliminate their "rules against perpetuities," which means that trust funds set up in those states can exist in perpetuity, thereby allowing the trust funds to own new businesses, houses, and much else for descendants of rich people, and even to allow the beneficiaries to avoid payments to creditors when in personal debt or sued for causing accidents and injuries. About $100 billion in trust funds has flowed into those states so far. You can read the details on these "dynasty trusts" (which could be the basis for an even more solidified "American aristocracy") in a New York Times opinion piece published in July 2010 by Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, who also has a book on this and other new tricks: Immortality and the Law: The Rising Power of the American Dead (Yale University Press, 2010).
Inheritance and estate taxes
Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $253 billion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010b).
It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservative and libertarian activists behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way. However, a study (Kenny et al., 2006) of the financial support for eliminating inheritance taxes discovered that 18 super-rich families (mostly Republican financial donors, but a few who support Democrats) provide the anti-government activists with most of the money for this effort. (For more infomation, including the names of the major donors, download the article from United For a Fair Economy's Web site.)
Actually, ultra-conservatives and their wealthy financial backers may not have to bother to eliminate what remains of inheritance taxes at the federal level. The rich already have a new way to avoid inheritance taxes forever -- for generations and generations -- thanks to bankers. After Congress passed a reform in 1986 making it impossible for a "trust" to skip a generation before paying inheritance taxes, bankers convinced legislatures in many states to eliminate their "rules against perpetuities," which means that trust funds set up in those states can exist in perpetuity, thereby allowing the trust funds to own new businesses, houses, and much else for descendants of rich people, and even to allow the beneficiaries to avoid payments to creditors when in personal debt or sued for causing accidents and injuries. About $100 billion in trust funds has flowed into those states so far. You can read the details on these "dynasty trusts" (which could be the basis for an even more solidified "American aristocracy") in a New York Times opinion piece published in July 2010 by Boston College law professor Ray Madoff, who also has a book on this and other new tricks: Immortality and the Law: The Rising Power of the American Dead (Yale University Press, 2010).
Only 8 more days till the Barackalypse. It's been real, America.
Federal only. State and local taxes are highly regressive:
(Washington Post)
I'm also not sure whether your article, though it says 'total tax burden', is only talking about the income tax. (Its links to the CBO don't work). That's a standard sleight-of-hand in the right-wing press.
As I said, your tax system as a whole - federal, state, local, income, payroll and everything else - is very slightly progressive.
I know it feels good to imagine that your hard work and enterprising spirit is propping up all these work-shy scroungers, problem is it's not actually true.
Is a reason why local-state taxes are not progressive like federal tax, in New Jersey if you make $500 a week and then you lose your job you get $440 (about) a week from unemployment which is supported by the state, but if you make $5 000 a week and you lose your job you get the same a week $440.
What the government did to earn that money?
What has failing to index unemployment benefits to your previous salary (which would be a pretty odd policy) got to do with tax rates?
Colbert leading in polls to succeed DeMint in SC Senate seat
At least Nikki Haley has ruled herself out. DeMint's off to the American Heritage Foundation where he can continue the conservative fight; at least that what he says.
Susan Rice has withdrawn from the SoS nomination consideration.
fecking republicans. I bet McCain will wank and shoot sawdust out of his wrinkled old cock tonight!!Should go to John Kerry then...that'll have Fox frothing.
Chuck Hagel for SecDef is looking likely.
Chuck Hagel for SecDef is looking likely.
I can't understand giving Kerry the job. Do they really want another Massachussets election?
Why not? If we can't win Massachusetts we should just pack it in:
Just don't fecking nominate Caroline Kennedy.
...
why Grin?
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/joe-walsh-considering-senate-bid
Joe Walsh considering running against Dick Durbin.
think the deadbeat has a fair shot.
Joe Walsh considering running against Dick Durbin.
think the deadbeat has a fair shot.
I want an experienced politician who isn't just trading from her family name and network. She'd also galvanise the opponents who'd like nothing better than to moan about rich asshole dynasty candidates.
I don't think she's done anything of note either.
I just want someone who can win..I hate that fecking Scott Brown.
How about Springsteen or Damon?
- Status