The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

Quote; “A lower tax rate logically increases the GDP to some extent”

Agree, however, according to Trump’s GDP Growth Rates, a short-lived boost to the GDP;

2017; 2.24%…..pre-tax cuts
2018; 2.95%
2019; 2.29%

But let’s be honest; Prior to the pandemic, we were overdue for an economic retraction.

 

The rich don't mind paying taxes on the wealth the government has given them through the highly corrupt corporatist system we have. They don't love taxes of course, but their main focus is ensuring the gravy train continues unabated.

Then there's the rich mugs who earned it. THEY care about taxes. They know what it's like to swim upstream and see 40% of their **** be confiscated to prop up the cartels which comprise their competition.

 

IMO, most rich people wouldn’t mind paying more taxes, and not just the rich….

My 2017 Annual Income; $222,000, Employer; Big Oil&Gas, and I rented approx. 100 acres of farmland…..effective tax rate; 21%

Effective tax rate, post-Trump’s tax cuts; 19%

2018 Charitable donations;

Cash; $4,000 to Big Brothers and Big Sisters

In-Kind; I donated my Dodge 250 to a regional food bank….FMV, $9,000…they needed a truck to collect food from many private entities.

In other words, in 2018, I donated my tax cuts, and then some.

My 2023’s effective tax rate; 18.83%

Fairly, and progressively, TAX ME MORE.

 

Im not sure exactly where you are going with this. Were we due for an economic retraction? Yes I dont doubt it, but I cannot say that it would have been 2020 or a longer period like 2025. It had already been a long time where we had relatively slow but positive growth.

If it is a balanced budget that is your desire to discuss, I am all for balancing the budget, but I do not believe that is likely unless it is over a long period of time. I am one that believes that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. My solution would be to have a 5 % across the board tax cut per year across every program (including defense) to begin that journey. Corporate America has been having cutbacks eliminating layers of mgmt etc in order to cut costs and even improve efficiencies. The government is capable of the same. Goverments bloated bureaucracy certainly gives plenty of targets for cutting layers of bloat that have accumulated over the years. I believe they could accomplish/produce just as much while significantly cutting their costs.

If you start us on such a path to meaningful progress to getting the debt under control then and only then would I personally consider any form of tax increases. I still remember when Tip Oneill screwed over Bush senior by telling him if he raised taxes they would cut spending. The tax hike happened, Bush senior was hung for it by his own party, and Tip Oneill delivered no spending cuts. Bush had his heart in the right place, and paid the price for his misplaced trust in Democrats to cut spending. They did the same thing to Reagan and amnesty but that is a different subject.

Show me truly meaningful spending cuts that take place in successive years and delivers meaningful reductions in the deficit, and I might support meaningful tax increases that substantively attack the debt. Quite frankly, I dont trust the government to enact those spending cuts so I doubt very much that it would ever come to pass.

 

What is the point you are trying to make with it, can't respond until you state a point and I asked you

The top 1% earn 26.3% of the income and pay 45.8% of the taxes. Yes that is getting soaked.

I posted the numbers and still await your to supply your numbers, if this is not fair what would be, when could we say it is now fair?

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

Since when is the governments responsibilty and the purpose of the tax code to limit what a person can earn?

 

There won't be a response to that post. It blows that 1% overpays BS out of the water.

I see the poster responded to you and completely missed what the article was about.
It had nothing at all with limiting what a person can earn. How that was comprehended from the article is a mystery. Or the poster didn't bother to even read it.

 

It destroys the RW fake news about the 1% overpaying. The conveniently leave out they also earn the most.
As the article I posted said. The bottom 90% only earn 59% of all the income.

 

If you increase the GDP enough they would have. THAT is the goal to grow the economy faster than the government so the government takes a smaller and smaller share of GDP and tax rates can be lowered even more. Government does not have some claim to a certain portion of GDP.

 

Here's the issue regarding spending, as RW likes to claim it's a spending problem. Which may be partly true. But the RW spends like drunken sailors just as much as Dems do. See your numbers above to prove that.

Dems = tax and spend
Rs = borrow and spend.

 

And across the board investment boom due to the lower capgains tax rates and restraining the growth of federal spending, stricter welfare work requirements, lessening the regulation chains on the economy, just as with the Gingrich/Kasich congress and a "triangulated" (ie give in to the Reps) Clinton.

Tell me what is the purpose of raising taxes on investments, to raise more revenue or make it "fair"? Which SHOULD it be?

 

So deflect, gas light and grab for straw all in one sentence, pat yourself on the back and respond specifically to post #454, I'd thank you but you're running at full gallop from it and I pass on chasing "silly wabbits".

 

The greatest borrowing, COVID years of course having the "*", are under Democrat policies. The two recent times we have had surpluses or paltry deficits heading there have been under supply-side conservative lower tax rates and spending restraint. Even the lowering of the deficits during Obama's term was due to Rep sequester and austerity programs. Was Trump not conservative enough for me, yes even though he did propose across the board spending cuts in his budgets. Are there too many RINO's in congress yes? Are there any Democrat fiscal conservatives, not that I know of. Which party constantly fights FOR raising the Debt limits and refuses to discuss spending cuts, Dems.

 

I DID respond to it. Your dodging and deflection noted, I don't even think you know what is your point.

You diverted to so called income inequality

Since when is the governments' responsibilty and the purpose of the tax code to limit what a person can earn and achieve income equality for all the citizens?

I also posted the latest income figures already. YOU have yet to respond

if this is not fair what would be, when could we say it is now fair?

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

 

I have directly addressed it, ball in your court.

 

That's not a response to the data in that specific post#454, just a wall of nonsense^^^ deflection to cover the nonsense displayed in what I quoted.

Here it is, try again, this time deal with this I highlighted it to help with your focus:

 

You think a link about income and disparity was a post about gov't limiting what people can earn.

The history is well known about how much the gov't spends.
The biggest spenders in history is well known.

...
Barack Obama
President Obama had the largest deficits. By the end of his final budget, FY 2017, his budget deficits totaled $6.781 trillion over his eight years in office. That's a 58% increase from President George W. Bush's last budget.

Donald Trump
President Trump took office in 2017. By the end of his term four years later, he was estimated to hold $6.6 trillion in deficits, a 33% increase. The CBO predicted that the COVID-19 pandemic would increase the FY 2020 deficit by $2.2 trillion and the FY 2021 deficit by $600 billion.10

George W. Bush
President Bush took office in 2001. He racked up $3.293 trillion in deficits during his two terms, a 57% increase.11

Ronald Reagan
President Reagan took office in 1981. He added $1.412 trillion in deficits and almost doubled the debt during his eight years in office.6 He fought the 1982 recession by signing the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. It reduced the highest marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and reduced the corporate income tax for small companies with taxable incomes of $50,000 or less.14
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

 

Post the direct response. post #.

 

There is not a graph in #454 and it would not matter anyway. I posted the income numbers in my numbers already and addressed income inequality...............it is NOT the job of the government to equalize incomes nor the purpose of the tax system.

I have said it three times now.

I asked first if this is not fair what would be, when could we say it is now fair?

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

 

Data then, genius, and people are still wait for you to address it SPECIFICALLY and also with the post # that you are claiming you did already. Thanks.

 

What about it.......... income inequality...............it is NOT the job of the government to equalize incomes nor the purpose of the tax system.

I asked FIRST stop with the obtuse post if this is not fair what would be, when could we say it is now fair?

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

 

See above.

What has not been addressed about the so-called income disparity I gave my opinion about it.

I asked FIRST stop with the obtuse post if this is not fair what would be, when could we say it is now fair?

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

 

Quote; “It had already been a long time where we had relatively slow but positive growth”

Here’s the main reason Trump’s good economical times GDP growth rates were below historical average;

The 4 components to the GDP

A. Consumer spending

B. Business spending

C. Government spending….BEA only calculates Government Consumption Expenditures, and Gross Investment, and GI is Infrastructure money

D. NET EXPORTS…..since we had trade deficits, the GDP formula has been A + B + C minus D.

1995 Trade Deficit; $90 billion

In 2019 dollars; $150 billion (U.S. CPI Calculator)

2019 Trade Deficit; $579 billion

Differential; + $429 billion

Thus, due to a high trade deficit, we lost an extra 2% GDP growth rate.

psst; Don’t tell anyone.

 

Well how else to you propose to cure it if you believe it is something that needs to be eliminated?

When you learn some economics and that government deficits and debt and budgets are not singularly controlled by the President and that in fact they can be cut out of the process by a opposition Congress let me know. Simply posting who was President and what was the debt/deficit for a given year is folly.

 

I feel like this conversation is jumping all over the place.

Is your desire to discuss ideas for balancing the budget from a nonpartisan perspective? Or are you wanting to bash the Trump economy?

These seem like two entirely different topics and you seem to flip flop the topic every other reply. Im not interested in having a discussion about the Trump economy.

Typically this topic issue works itself out because in a regular conversation one person makes a post, another responds to a particular topic in that post, and then the other person replies back to that comment etc. which creates a single issue driven or at least more focused discussion.

In this conversation, you say something, I reply to that something, then you reply with something else altogether etc. It has created a disjointed conversation.

Respectfully, this type of discussion is not of interest to me. It results in you pushing your agenda, me replying to your points, and in return my replies simply get ignored. I realize this time you did at least quote a tangential comment I made, but you wholly ignored the actual predicate. Why would anyone want that?

Lets just agree to go our separate ways.

 

Link to where you addressed it before or you are scrambling to save face, thanks. You claimed you did long before the post you are now touting as an answer. If you can't, you owe @dairyair an explaination and even an apology. Link to the first post you claimed you addressed it, flail away.....a post of your's addressing it before post #459?