Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 50      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,776
Reply with quote  #91 
Almost everyone in the US is in the top 1% worldwide.

Quit bittching that life isn't fair, or good enough.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,868
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue


What's this? Am I seeing things, or did Dewey post this exact same request for make-believe gamechanging eyebrow-raisers in another thread mere minutes ago?


Dewey will post questions in multiple threads, and is also good at ducking questions in multiple threads.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #93 
Heard last night tge top 1% pay 44% of all taxes, and sonething like 25 % pay no taxes.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Just now watched another Republican spinning numbers again on how the top earners pay most of the taxes.  Of course they do, (here's an article suggesting 68%), but please allow me to give an example to slow that spin down.

Typical Dewey, distorting the conversation and changing the subject.

- They talked about the top 1% last night and he comes back with an article about the top 10%. smh 

- His example is fine, but it isn't on topic.

It just adds to readers' concerns about his mental faculties and/or integrity.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,054
Reply with quote  #95 
Robin Hood
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,776
Reply with quote  #96 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Heard last night tge top 1% pay 44% of all taxes, and sonething like 25 % pay no taxes.


Actually, 45% pay no taxes.

But they live better than 99% of the worlds population.

__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #97 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Here is a graph showing how Dewey's example makes no sense.  The graph actually tries to support the socialist idea that the wealthy pay less in taxes.  The idea that everyone pays 10% is a non-starter because that's not how it works.  Notice how those past the 1% start to pay less in taxes?  The reason for that is that far more of their income comes in the form of capital gains.  In the year this graph was created, the capital gains tax was 15%.  Remember that the capital used to generate those capital gains was already taxed once.

So people, when Dewey posts his phony what-ifs, remember that they usually are based on false premises.

The article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/04/as-the-rich-become-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/) also mentions the capital gains rate has been raised and it will be interesting to see if that has any effect.
 
In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

People need to recognize these numbers only reflect taxable income (AGI) and the wealthy are also likely to invest in tax-free investments (e.g. muni bonds) that don't appear in it. 

I no longer support the argument that capital gains are a second taxing because the stock market doesn't operate that way anymore. I wish it was still based on EPS, however it is now largely speculative. I'd like to see the special treatment of capital gains reformed to focus on investments that actually fuel the economy. I'd also like to see them give fairer treatment to investments that have been held for many years to offset inflation.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #98 
PDad - I agree that capital gains are not a second tax.  In other words, it's not taxing the same income twice.  My point is that the income is derived from assets that were already gained and taxed.  The capital gains tax is merely a tax on the wise investment decisions of the taxpayer.

This article also doesn't confuse income with wealth which is a false argument made by those on the left.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #99 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
Robin Hood


More like Dennis Moore aka Bernie Sanders.



keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 19,054
Reply with quote  #100 
Exactly, seems like dewy would support Bernie before hilLIARry, with all he wants to do for the "vulnerables"   See Sheila Jackson Lee for  "vulnerables" definition, she made the word up, not even schittin 
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #101 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
PDad - I agree that capital gains are not a second tax.  In other words, it's not taxing the same income twice.  My point is that the income is derived from assets that were already gained and taxed.  The capital gains tax is merely a tax on the wise investment decisions of the taxpayer.

Capital gains is a profit from selling something for more than it cost. It's not much different than what a retailer does. The rationale for giving it favorable tax treatment is to attract/retain capital for businesses to grow.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #102 
All these posts are interesting but mostly miss the theme of my original post.  Just know if somebody on TV says the top ten percent of the taxpayers pay 70% of the total taxes, it means absolutely nothing unless you can break down the actual numbers behind the comment.  In fact, it could mean the bottom 90% are being hosed. 

To make it clear, I gave an example of a flat tax, everyone paying exactly the same in a 100 person group example, where one could claim the top ten percent paid 69% of the taxes as if something was awry.  No more, no less.  The more income that goes to the top wage earners, the more they can make misleading statements on TV like I heard last night.  It's part of their defense mechanism against our income inequality movement in this Country.  Sound bytes to make it look like they are being mistreated.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 8,019
Reply with quote  #103 
Nobody missed your theme.  We just proved that your example, which doesn't exist in the real world, is deeply flawed.  In fact, I posted a chart showing that it is clearly wrong.

This is what happens when someone proves you wrong - you say they missed the point.  Not true, at least in this case.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #104 
pabar - I have no problems with your chart.  It is probably true.  It just has nothing to do with a person saying the top x percent pay 70% of all the taxes.  This latter statement is just misleading without knowing all the numbers.  I showed where it was possible that we could all be paying the same tax rate and the statement would be true.  It has no real meaning on its face other than to make it sound like somebody is getting hosed.  The readers can judge for themselves my post has merit.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #105 
I'm still waiting for a Lib to define what percentage constitutes a "fair share"...
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #106 
I would say at $200,000 and above, return the rates to wherever they were before Bush cut them.  Maybe they are back to where they once were but I don't think so.  At least not at the same income levels.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #107 
Individual, married filing jointly and/or HoH? No adjustment for inflation?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #108 
For $200,000 and above, all categories, just put them back to the rates and levels they were before Bush cut them.  Not concerned about adjusting for inflation on these levels at this time but could be talked into reviewing them further after seeing budget and resulting deficits.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,776
Reply with quote  #109 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
  In fact, it could mean the bottom 90% are being hosed. 

 


45% of Americans pay no income tax. They are far from "being hosed" by the tax system.

Talk about sound bites. lol

 


__________________
#MakeDCListen #End Socialism #NoDems #2016 #ForAmerica
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,868
Reply with quote  #110 
It would appear that would be a 3% raise.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #111 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
For $200,000 and above, all categories, just put them back to the rates and levels they were before Bush cut them.  Not concerned about adjusting for inflation on these levels at this time but could be talked into reviewing them further after seeing budget and resulting deficits.

Levels have been indexed for 30+ years to prevent "bracket creep" which taxes comparable dollars at higher rates. This was part of the misery in the 1970's when inflation was high.

- Clinton's top rate of 39.6% in 1993 kicked in at $250k, which is equivalent to $410k today.
- $200k would have been taxed at 36% - with and without adjusting for inflation.
- $200k in a few years would have been taxed at 31%.

Bottom line, your definition of "fair share" would be a tax decrease and more popular with the GOP than the tax-and-spend Libs.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #112 
Not sure I followed your post so let's just put $250,000 back at 39.6%.  How's that compare to today's rate?
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #113 
Duh - undoing 22+ years of indexing results in a higher rate. smh

I doubt your comrades would agree to limit themselves to that.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #114 
Maybe.  However, you wanted an answer so I tried to give you one.  I would need weeks of study regarding revenue levels, expenditures, etc., to really provide a well thought out opinion on what our tax rates should be.   How about we lower joint returns down to $325,000 and add a 41% rate at the $1 million dollar mark?  How is that?
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #115 
You've proved the point behind my question - Libs complain about people not paying their fair share, however they can't/won't define fair share. If it was really an issue of fairness, they should be able to define it. It's really just a stick to demonize a minority so they can fund their ever-growing government.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #116 
My view is if you are born a citizen of the US, you are eligible to be President.  Yes, even anchor babies.  No special explanation needs to apply.  Obama, McCain, and Cruz would all be legitimate Presidents.  Of course, I can only have a view as I don't have a legal background to know for certain what the Constitution means by natural born.

Pabar says there are different circumstances that would result in different answers.  I have no idea what those would be and I'm looking forward to a couple of examples.  In any event, what say you?  Must an individual be born in US territory to qualify to become US President?
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #117 
[200_s] 

Thanks for your unsolicited sharing of your view. However, this is the wrong place for you to ask questions. On top of that, you asked a different question here than the one pabar answered in the other thread. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #118 
PDad - If you want to come off as an independent and fair thread moderator, you should call out those who post obnoxious pictures to shout me down.  At least that's what I think.

Here I gave my view and noted pabar didn't give an answer, just said different answers are out there.  I tried to clarify a bit to make it easier to share a view.

Edit:  No need to dissect and analyze my posts so deeply.  If you're not interested in chiming in, then don't.  I don't understand the attitude.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 3,120
Reply with quote  #119 
There wasn't anything worth calling out - someone posted 1 picture and you went overboard by saying they were shouting you down. I don't understand why you reacted like that.

You posted a flawed question in the other thread and pabar gave an appropriate answer IMHO. The question you asked here is specific enough to answer, however you didn't own up to that and in the process did a disservice to pabar because some readers might think that was the question he answered.

Clean up your act.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,391
Reply with quote  #120 
I think you missed a few of those pictures and the bumped posts in their attempts to interfere.  In any event, you moderate as you see fit.  Btw, I don't think there's a thread rule as to how close the post must match the subject line but there are rules regarding respecting other members.  You can monitor those violations while you're at it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: