Who Pays for Big Government?

[Texas Contrarian]

Over the last few years I have found that the graph below is quite an eye-opener for my liberal friends.



(Note: Although this reflects data from a decade ago, I think the picture now looks pretty much the same. In fact, you may note that the top-bracket income tax rate in the U.S. was jacked up from 35% to 39.6% two years ago, and the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 23.8%).

Taxation in the U.S. is actually quite progressive compared with that in most of Europe's social democracies.

While it certainly is the case that tax rates across-the-board are higher in countries like France than they are in the U.S., the disparity increases greatly as you go downward in the income distribution. That seems to come as a surprise to many progressives, who often seem to think that income and wealth disparity is largely the result of tax cuts for the "rich" (however you may choose to define "rich").

As you can see, the tax system in France is highly regressive, while the opposite is the case here.

Yet many progressives claim, or at least insinuate, that our long-term budget concerns would be substantially ameliorated if we only asked the "wealthy" to pay their fair share.

My key point is not that top-bracket tax rates are too high, too low, or anything else. I think fair-minded people on both sides of the aisle can reasonably disagree. Rather, it's that tax increases restricted to the top one percent of the distribution don't take more than baby steps toward financing the sorts of lavish government programs envisioned or supported by liberal politicians.

Raising top-bracket rates on income, capital gains, and qualified dividends to levels that would make Professor Krugman have an orgasm on the spot wouldn't come remotely close to eliminating budget deficits in upcoming years.

See commentary regarding above graphic @ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...vernment/?_r=0

[Jackie S]

I think the tax rate is about right at this time. After about July, I am paying 39% of every dollar I earn to the Government, and I can live with that.

Since 90% of my income is earned income, (W-2), I get very little benefit outside my business from the others.

When is enough, enough?

[UnderConstruction]

It's better now than it was. In the 50s the top tax bracket was well north of 75%. I agree, simply taxing the rich more won't pay for social programs. We need to eliminate waste.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

It's better now than it was. In the 50s the top tax bracket was well north of 75%. I agree, simply taxing the rich more won't pay for social programs. We need to eliminate waste.

The big problem there is one Congressman's "waste" is another Congressman's pork barrel project.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think the tax rate is about right at this time. After about July, I am paying 39% of every dollar I earn to the Government, and I can live with that.

Since 90% of my income is earned income, (W-2), I get very little benefit outside my business from the others.

When is enough, enough?

You say 90% of your income is earned income. What about those CEO's (Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Elison and a million others) who make a $1 in "earned income" for a year. Do you think they are rationing out that 1 dollar to cover their Ferrari insurance? No. They are making bank of off capital gains and dividend income while gaming our tax system. It is a FACT that Romney paid a 14% tax rate during the year prior to his presidential campaign run. So did Warren Buffet. Do you think that is fair? while the rest of the country men (like you) pay almost 40% of their income, people with BILLIONS pay only about 15% of what they actually made? Thank George "idiot" Bush for his capital gains tax rates right? This is exactly why we have such a huge disparity in income equality currently.

This is also exactly what's wrong with the republican party. Their entire agenda is based on the philosophy of the very few (the rich and wealthy) and they push that agenda on the majority of republicans who don't even know what's good for them. They'll appease to them by throwing a bone like religious sanctity or some other bullshit and then fuck them seven ways from Sunday when it comes to anything of actual safety and importance.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by shanm

You say 90% of your income is earned income. What about those CEO's (Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Elison and a million others) who make a $1 in "earned income" for a year. Do you think they are rationing out that 1 dollar to cover their Ferrari insurance? No. They are making bank of off capital gains and dividend income while gaming our tax system. It is a FACT that Romney paid a 14% tax rate during the year prior to his presidential campaign run. So did Warren Buffet. Do you think that is fair? while the rest of the country men (like you) pay almost 40% of their income, people with BILLIONS pay only about 15% of what they actually made? Thank George "idiot" Bush for his capital gains tax rates right? This is exactly why we have such a huge disparity in income equality currently.

This is also exactly what's wrong with the republican party. Their entire agenda is based on the philosophy of the very few (the rich and wealthy) and they push that agenda on the majority of republicans who don't even know what's good for them. They'll appease to them by throwing a bone like religious sanctity or some other bullshit and then fuck them seven ways from Sunday when it comes to anything of actual safety and importance.

Truth

[Guest123018-4]

The way Obama is taking on debt it will be our children, our children's children, our children's children's children, our children's children's children's children, and so on.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The way Obama is taking on debt it will be our children, our children's children, our children's children's children, our children's children's children's children, and so on.

Bush and Obama are neck and neck on who has added the most debt.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The way Obama is taking on debt it will be our children, our children's children, our children's children's children, our children's children's children's children, and so on.

our children + ∞



too bad America can't afford to do that.

[CuteOldGuy]

Gee. How much does GE pay in taxes? Under Obama? They both favor the rich. You know why? The rich OWN them! The corporations OWN THEM! The banks OWN them! BOTH parties! Gawd you people are gullible.

The income tax is evil and barbaric. It is a tool of control, not revenue. That's why it is a major component of the Communist Manifesto. The income tax should be abolished. When the government tells you how much of what you earn you are allowed to keep, you are not free!

[Guest123018-4]

Where is your linck UC as asswipe would say. I really do not care if you have a linck or not.
Both of them have done what they all have done and that is to increase the size of government and not take care of our own before we take care of otheres.
We have built a government to a size that is no longer affordable. We cannot even maintain what we have built much less spend our hard earned tax dollars and increasing debt on shit we cannot afford.

Of course we have a fundamental difference. You believe in bigger government and higher taxes and I believe in smaller government and less taxes. The gov ernment we have is so bloated we cannot even take care of our veterans muchj less take on the responsibility for the healthcare of the rest of the world. Knowing how our government operates, I want them as little involved in my life as possible since it is obvious they are inept and it runs throughout the nation. If you cannot see this you are even more blind in your mind than I am in my eyes.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

our children + ∞

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Where is your linck UC as asswipe would say. I really do not care if you have a linck or not.
Both of them have done what they all have done and that is to increase the size of government and not take care of our own before we take care of otheres.
We have built a government to a size that is no longer affordable. We cannot even maintain what we have built much less spend our hard earned tax dollars and increasing debt on shit we cannot afford.

Of course we have a fundamental difference. You believe in bigger government and higher taxes and I believe in smaller government and less taxes. The gov ernment we have is so bloated we cannot even take care of our veterans muchj less take on the responsibility for the healthcare of the rest of the world. Knowing how our government operates, I want them as little involved in my life as possible since it is obvious they are inept and it runs throughout the nation. If you cannot see this you are even more blind in your mind than I am in my eyes.

You can google the debt and easily see what the numbers are. Who said anything about giving healthcare to the rest of the world? What others are we taking care of before our own? If you're speaking of foreign aid, it's a very tiny part of our entire budget. I would say that we could quit spending so goddamn much on the military budget as far as paying for machines and planes that never get built but we throw away billions to find that out. But you don't want to cut military spending I'm sure. That's where you don't ming government being big as shit. I agree, our government is so bloated that it's out of control. I'm only socially liberal, not fiscally.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

You say 90% of your income is earned income. What about those CEO's (Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Elison and a million others) who make a $1 in "earned income" for a year....They are making bank of (sic) off capital gains and dividend income while gaming our tax system....Thank George "idiot" Bush for his capital gains tax rates right? This is exactly why we have such a huge disparity in income equality currently....This is also exactly what's wrong with the republican party....

Ah yes, lookee here! It's another libtard rant by sham the scam... "It's all Bushie's fault. Those Republicans are evil. All they do is coddle the rich..."

And all the libtards do is fan the flames of class warfare in this country. The poor are victims. The reason you are poor is because someone else is rich. Keep the message simple.

Hey shammytard, here are a couple of questions for you. The answers may upset you since they don't fit well with your libtard narrative:

1. Which POTUS lowered the capital gains tax rate prior to George Bush in 2003? How big was that reduction in rates? What happened to the amount of capital gains tax revenues collected by the federal government afterwards?

2. When was the last time ordinary income (what you refer to as "earned income") and capital gains were taxed at the same rate? Who was POTUS at the time to make it happen?

I could easily tick off a half dozen reasons why it makes sense to tax capital gains at a somewhat lower rate than ordinary income. The arguments are based on economic fairness and efficiency, not politics. The OP Cap'n Midnight would probably get it. But it would all fly over the heads of idiots like shammytard and undercunt. For them, it's all about class warfare and demonizing the Republicans. That's all they know.

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Ah yes, lookee here! It's another libtard rant by sham the scam... "It's all Bushie's fault. Those Republicans are evil. All they do is coddle the rich..."

And all the libtards do is fan the flames of class warfare in this country. The poor are victims. The reason you are poor is because someone else is rich. Keep the message simple.

Hey shammytard, here are a couple of questions for you. The answers may upset you since they don't fit well with your libtard narrative:

1. Which POTUS lowered the capital gains tax rate prior to George Bush in 2003? How big was that reduction in rates? What happened to the amount of revenues collected by the federal government afterwards?

2. When was the last time ordinary income (what you refer to as "earned income") and capital gains were taxed at the same rate? Who was POTUS at the time to make it happen?

I could easily tick off a half dozen reasons why it makes sense to tax capital gains at a somewhat lower rate than ordinary income. The arguments are based on economic fairness and efficiency, not politics. The OP Cap'n Midnight would probably get it. But it would all fly over the heads of idiots like shammytard and undercunt. For them, it's all about class warfare and demonizing the Republicans. That's all they know.

.

Clinton is your answer to the first one, with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Long-term capital gains went from 28 to 20 percent. I actually agree, taxing long-term capital gains at a lower rate makes more sense. Short-term, I don't agree. It's income and should taxed as such. As for why I agree on long-term, it's not adjusted for inflation, so you pay taxes on the return as well as inflation. It's also a tax on future consumption, which has been shown to decrease long-term growth. It's also double-taxing if you tax at the same rate as income. It also depends on if you're talking about long or short-term capital gains. Long-term (usually held for over a year) is much lower and depending on tax bracket, is 0. Obama actually extended Bush's lowered rate that was set to expire. The answer to your second question is Obama, but it's only true for short-term capital gains. Long-term went from 15 to 20 percent.

PS - you're not capable of uttering anything that flies over my head, just FYI. And you're the one who comes off as uneducated. Always calling people tards, not using Obama's real name, etc. Just debate the issues. Leave the rest of the shit for somebody else. It doesn't make you any more of a republican. We all believe you hate Obama and I'm sure your republican friends do too. No reason to belabor the point.