Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

US Budget 2029

USA Budget The future Future NASA

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#21
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair?


Ah, indeed... I did misinterpret that. Now, is the fact that the top 25% of income earners make 66% of all income or that the top 1% of all earners make 19% of all income, or that the bottom 50% make only 13% of all income unfair? Yes, yes it is. How should 1% of Americans receive nineteen times their "fair share" of the pie? Do they work nineteen times harder? Are they nineteen times smarter? Perhaps they are nineteen times better looking or stronger? I think they're just nineteen times louder, luckier, and nineteen times better connected. They count on the rest of us being fine with that, too, and they'll do their best to scare the rest of us into giving up as much of our share as they can get their hands on by going on about how they are "job creators". That, my friend, is some bullshit. Give the lower 50% a share that is more like 40%, and not 13%, and see how many jobs you create. That lower 50% will suddenly be able to afford things like motorcycles and home entertainment systems and vacations and nights out at restaurants and new clothes and a remodeled kitchen.
  • Wesfky likes this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#22
Zachemc2

Zachemc2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts
Let's put it this way: Person A goes to college for 8 years and gets a degree. Person B drops out of high school in 11th grade. Should Person A be making the same as Person B? No, not at all. Is it fairer for Person A to be making $380,000 a year and Person B to be making $20,000 a year? Yes.

#23
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Posted Image


OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...

Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.

Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

Nooooooooooooooo, lol.

The tax rate was ridiculously high. It was an act of tyranny. I cannot find any moral justification for theft of that degree. More than half? No fuck that, that is bonafide evil.

And it is extremely counterproductive. Tax revenue was down, really down, even though the tax rate was at 95%. Why? Because no one cared to get rich. That is a ridiculously stupidly high tax rate. Who would want to work that hard to have 95% of the fruit of their labor stolen? I know I wouldn't. So no one tried to make much money. So productivity was down. So the GDP was down. So tax revenue was down.

JFK said, "what am I to do?" Well John Maynard Keynes had the answer:

"…to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied…
Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss."
So JFK lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 77% and 89% to 76%. As a result, tax revenue rose (I don't know the exact number off hand but I can find it for you if you wish).

Well this got future economist Art Laffer thinking. Inspired by the Keynes and the JFK phenomena as well as Muqaddimah, he developed the Laffer Curve. Reagan hopped on the idea and slashed the top marginal tax rates from 70% to 30%, thereby performing one of the greatest acts in favor of personal liberty in the history of America. And tax revenue rose substantially.

And I do have the exact numbers for this one. With the 70% tax rate, the total revenue for the top margin was 37 billion dollars 1980. With deductions, the government collected 19 billion. After the tax cuts, the total revenue of the top margin was 353 billion dollars. The government took all 30% of that and got 100 billion in 1988. By slashing taxes from 70% to 30%, the government collected 5 times more revenue.

With all the extra money, the rich began investing. And so the economy took off like a skyrocket. I don't know why everyone hates Reagan so much. During his presidency, everyone did fantastically. The economy was booming. He won 49 out of 50 states in his reelection, the biggest landslide in American history. My guess is that the left needs an icon to raze as much the right needs an icon to idolize. Both sides ignore the facts of the matter, but I think the left is more egregious in this sense. Oh Reagan is so evil. Yeah, well you would be doing phenomenally better if you lived during his presidency than under Obama's right now.

Now, because historically the government never gets more than 18.5% of the GDP in taxes no matter what the rate is, I say we should have a 18% flat or fair rate. I believe this will generate the highest revenue. Get rid of the capital gains tax (please God get rid of that one even if you raise the income tax to 50%, it is the most astoundingly stupid tax ever devised) and the estate tax. Get rid of double/triple/quadruple taxation.
  • Zachemc2 likes this

#24
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace
Is the US Tax system regressive?

Many people point to the Capital Gains Tax as regressive. Currently only 15% is being taxed under capital gains. Many people seem to forget the corporate tax (Which the US has one of the highest rates). Corporate Tax is currently at 35%. Corporate Tax is applied to Net profits.

Quotes rom wikipedia.



Company income subject to tax is often determined much like taxable income for individuals. Generally, the tax is imposed on net profits.



Net profit or net revenue is a measure of the profitability of a venture after accounting for all costs.



Lets look at the math.

Corporation A makes $100m in net profits.

Corporate tax cuts $35m which effectivly makes it $65m. Lets also assume this company invests 15m back in it self . Now we have $50 million to be divided amoung Sare holders.

Lets assume shareholder A is a CEO and makes $1m year as a salary and owns 10% of the shares. That would mean 15% is taxed off his $5m dividents. He only gets $4.25m. He only gets $650,000 in income. Which got taxed more?

If the corporate tax was abolished the corporation would have $85m to give in dividents. He would then got a $8.5m divident. $4.25m is half of 8.25m. Government keeps half his earnings.

So the rich legally get taxed around 50% for their capital gains and 35% for income. Hardly regressive.

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#25
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Oh Reagan is so evil. Yeah, well you would be doing phenomenally better if you lived during his presidency than under Obama's right now.


Posted Image

#26
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
Also, I found a related image :laugh:

Posted Image

#27
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Also, I found a related image :laugh:

Posted Image

Now compare the revenue of the top margin then and the top margin now. Don't forget to adjust for inflation.

Did you even read my argument?

#28
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.


Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#29
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts


It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.


Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.

Tax cuts aren't spending. There is a fundamental difference between revenue and spending.

You're letting people keep their money. You're not stealing it from them. You're not taking it from them by threatening to put them into prison if they don't. Isn't that what this country was founded on? Reaping the fruits of your labor? People get rich because of voluntary exchange. Walmart wouldn't have so much money if so many people didn't go there on their own accord.

In fact, I got a Jefferson quote: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

The Fed mucks up a lot in the economy but cutting the tax rate from 70% to 30% hugely spurred investment and increased tax revenue, you can't deny that. Plus, at least from a self-ownership perspective, it was great decrease in tyranny. 70%. Wow. That is fucking ridiculous. That is the mark of very not free society.

#30
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
I did read your argument its just I didn't have the heart to tell you, by the time Reagan left office the national debt had tripled from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion.

#31
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.


You sir do not understand microeconomics.

#32
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

I did read your argument its just I didn't have the heart to tell you, by the time Reagan left office the national debt had tripled from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion.

I'm fully aware of that. It is probably the greatest fault of his presidency and why I am so reluctant to praise him.

It's because he did very little to curb spending and increased military spending substantially, the latter in the name of "fighting communism" which is a stupid euphemism for continuing the highly unsustainable American hegemony.

But the Reagan tax cuts greatly increased tax revenue and investment. This is undeniable, it is a fact, and all the closing your ears and screaming "Lalala" won't change that.

And the debt comment was the ace up your sleeve to show me how wrong I was because I am so obviously unaware of something so well known. Pathetic.

#33
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
Trying to catch me out? Think you can get the ace out of my sleeve, well that's what I wanted you do to. Meaning that my really ace up my sleeve is that you would fall for the false ace up my other sleeve!

But at the end of the day you can close your eyes and scream "Lalala", but it will not change the undeniable fact that supply-side does not work.

#34
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Trying to catch me out? Think you can get the ace out of my sleeve, well that's what I wanted you do to. Meaning that my really ace up my sleeve is that you would fall for the false ace up my other sleeve!

But at the end of the day you can close your eyes and scream "Lalala", but it will not change the undeniable fact that supply-side does not work.

Supply side refers to so many things but in this case it is referring to the FACT that the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED government revenue. Are you denying this?

#35
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts
Oops I meant supply side economics.

#36
Wesfky

Wesfky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Supply side refers to so many things but in this case it is referring to the FACT that the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED government revenue. Are you denying this?


Yeah I'll deny that. Its pretty impossible to cut income and gain revenue...

#37
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace


Supply side refers to so many things but in this case it is referring to the FACT that the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED government revenue. Are you denying this?


Yeah I'll deny that. Its pretty impossible to cut income and gain revenue...

Posted Image

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#38
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts


Companies pay a lower tax rate now than under Reagan. And we're already under Bush tax cuts. Obviously they've failed the country miserably. Look at our debt. Of course the wars and social programs added to it too, but it's pretty damn hard to ignore 10 trillion dollars lol. And by the way, the recession from Reagan's time was a different recession than of now. We have a disease in the system now called bank deregulation.

The Reagan recession:
A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[8] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.

Of course you want to say it was because tax rates were cut that caused the economy to recover, even though the print in red above seemingly had nothing to do with it ::rolls eyes::

Tax cuts is wasteful government spending. Simple as that.


You sir do not understand microeconomics.


Tax cuts did NOT get us out of the recession in the early 1980's that Republicans so blindly believe. And you've made ranting statements in the past about my remarks but you don't back it up. Talk is cheap.
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#39
Prolite

Prolite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
Tax cuts = GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

You're trying to make a moral argument about stealing!? hahaha... yeah okay.

Money IN = Revenue
Money OUT = Spending.

Letting people keep more of their money = spending. This is money that was already due to the government before legislation to allow more government spending (tax cuts). But now it's being given away. That's money out. "giving away" and "letting people keep" money is the same crap. Any business owner would understand this concept.

Tax cuts (government spending) causes deficits. Or in other words: government spending causes deficits. And republicans argue: "yeah but if you cut taxes, it's going to create jobs and therefore create more revenue." Republicans are admitting that tax cuts is spending, especially in this example where they're admitting that tax cuts causes temporary government' deficits... which is SPENDING.


Republicans love to say: "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Even republicans themselves are referring to taxes as revenue. In fact, Democrats can't even say taxes any more. They have to say "revenue." When more taxes come in, that's revenue. When less taxes come in, that's spending. The only difference is the net loss or gain of the money. lol :laugh:
I'm a business man, that's all you need to know about me.

#40
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

Tax cuts did NOT get us out of the recession in the early 1980's that Republicans so blindly believe. And you've made ranting statements in the past about my remarks but you don't back it up. Talk is cheap.


If I may ask, what did then? If you're going to ask someone to back up their statements, you might do well to back up your own.
  • Wesfky likes this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: USA, Budget, The future, Future, NASA

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users