A legitimate argument for increasing taxation on the wealthy?

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Other causal factors in the 50s. Namely, a lack of competition. Everywhere had was catered by war. The US was basically the only manufacturing game in town, so tax rates didn't matter, because demand was constant, regardless of price. It's why most all of Europe began adding taxes or tarrifs to our products, especially cars. Which is why Ford opened its own division in europe.

LOL...A 90% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans "didn't matter" in the 1950s. Not a very compelling counter-argument.

 

[KevinKohler]

LOL...A 90% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans "didn't matter" in the 1950s. Not a very compelling counter-argument.

You missunderstand.

We (they)could afford such a high tax rate because they held monopolies on manufacturing. The entire world was buying made in the USA product. So the wealthy could pay those taxes, and STILL buy anything they wanted, in any quantity they wanted. We thought nothing of paying our workers livable wages, because even so, we still made more money than we knew what to do with.

That's the argument, at least.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

You missunderstand.

We (they)could afford such a high tax rate because they held monopolies on manufacturing. The entire world was buying made in the USA product. So the wealthy could pay those taxes, and STILL buy anything they wanted, in any quantity they wanted. We thought nothing of paying our workers livable wages, because even so, we still made more money than we knew what to do with.

That's the argument, at least.

More total nonsense. The super rich are much wealthier now than they were back in the 1950s. Therefore, they could pay a 90% tax rate easier now than they could back in the 1950s.

You just don't want to admit that a massive 90% tax on the rich was good for this country.

 

[KevinKohler]

More total nonsense. The super rich are much wealthier now than they were back in the 1950s. Therefore, they could pay a 90% tax rate easier now than they could back in the 1950s.

You just don't want to admit that a massive 90% tax on the rich was good for this country.

Not the case. I'm in favor of finding effective ways to level the playing field so that our economy best serves the most people possible.

The real issue with imposing progressive taxes to push employers to increase pay rates for their lower earning employees is...they will find ways to not pay them, or they'll jack their prices up. We've seen that already with covid. Before covid, the push for 15$ per hour was radical, and then covid hit, and look. 14 to 15 per hour minimum for just about everyone out there. But what else happened? That package of chicken thighs went from .99 cents per pound, to 1.99 or more per pound. That loaf of bread is 6 bucks or more. We can say it's a supply vs demand issue...and that was true 6 months to a year ago. Not anymore. Yet, the prices haven't fallen. Well, what about competition driving prices down, you say. Well, it's a bullshit argument when Republicrats make, and it's a bullshit argument when dempublicans make it too.

You wanna level the playing field? Tie top level wages to bottom level wages. But that's socialism, or some other ism we don't like.

 

[NatMorton]

 

[Razoo]

It would not be increasing taxes ....

It would be reinstating taxes that have been illegitimately reduced over the past 42 years. 42 years of special interest tax reduction is easy to question.

It should not be difficult to understand reinstating these taxes. Which might reduce taxes for the middle class or at least reduce substantially the money borrowed from Wall Street banks. Reducing taxes translates into a deficit which creates a need to cover the tax loss revenue through borrowing to keep funding government operation.

 

[element94]

While I am, in general, a flat tax advocate I present a notion for what might be a legitimate reason for increasing the levels of taxation on the wealthiest of us.

That notion is based on the idea that much of what is increasing government spending is corruptive practice. Corporate welfare alone is ponderous. How it may be calculated can change it to massive.

Example: Walmart gets over a BILLION dollars a year in corporate welfare from state and federal government. However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc. Well, if you count that welfare against Walmart that is over EIGHT BILLION A YEAR subsidy given to one of the richest, most profitable, corporations in the world by our government.

And the lion's share of the money that corrupts our state and federal governments, on the decisions on spending that drive up the cost of governing? It's not unions anymore. Nope. Unions are mostly dead, and those that aren't aren't spending remotely what they use to on lobbying efforts. Corporate spending on purchasing influence though has done nothing but increase.

So if it is the case that they get a great deal of the government pie, and since it is their money that is driving the majority of the corruptive practices that are raising the cost of governing, couldn't a legitimate argument be made that they should pay a greater percentage in footing that bill?

Just a notion for consideration...

What would your flat tax rate be?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Not the case. I'm in favor of finding effective ways to level the playing field so that our economy best serves the most people possible.

The real issue with imposing progressive taxes to push employers to increase pay rates for their lower earning employees is...they will find ways to not pay them, or they'll jack their prices up. We've seen that already with covid. Before covid, the push for 15$ per hour was radical, and then covid hit, and look. 14 to 15 per hour minimum for just about everyone out there. But what else happened? That package of chicken thighs went from .99 cents per pound, to 1.99 or more per pound. That loaf of bread is 6 bucks or more. We can say it's a supply vs demand issue...and that was true 6 months to a year ago. Not anymore. Yet, the prices haven't fallen. Well, what about competition driving prices down, you say. Well, it's a bullshit argument when Republicrats make, and it's a bullshit argument when dempublicans make it too.

You wanna level the playing field? Tie top level wages to bottom level wages. But that's socialism, or some other ism we don't like.

You have an extremely limited view on the benefits of taxation. It has relatively little to do with increasing wages for the poor/middle class or with "leveling the playing field".

If the richest 1% of Americans paid more taxes, then this country could easily afford a national health care system like they have in European countries and Canada. As a result, Americans wouldn't have to spend nearly as much money on their health care. Instead, they could spend more money buying the goods and services sold by the richest Americans and the biggest corporations, thus increasing the wealth of the rich even more. It would be a win/win for the poor and the rich. This is just one example of how more taxes on the rich could benefit this country overall.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Most positions at Walmart start at $15 so it's likely they are only talking about direct pay benefits like PTO and bonuses



It literally said that it doesn't.

Not to mention free college tuition.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Your average associate makes :$13.24/hr. You can add to that some small benefits adjustments IF the employee is full time but, as we all know [or ought to know] many major corporations, especially those without union representation, shift away from hiring full time specifically to avoid paying benefits.

I know with Walmart, they don't want to pay full time for associates who don't stick around. Walmart has a high turn over rate for certain positions such as cashier.

 

[KevinKohler]

You have an extremely limited view on the benefits of taxation. It has relatively little to do with increasing wages for the poor/middle class or with "leveling the playing field".

If the richest 1% of Americans paid more taxes, then this country could easily afford a national health care system like they have in European countries and Canada. As a result, Americans wouldn't have to spend nearly as much money on their health care. Instead, they could spend more money buying the goods and services sold by the richest Americans and the biggest corporations, thus increasing the wealth of the rich even more. It would be a win/win for the poor and the rich. This is just one example of how more taxes on the rich could benefit this country overall.

If the above is true, then why didn't we have a national health care system in the 50s and 60s, when the rich WERE paying higher tax rates?

The truth is, what we take in in taxes has absolutely nothing to do with what we spend every year. We could triple our tax intake, and still not set up universal healthcare. And we could also take in ZERO in taxes, and still fully fund out military.

Taxation isn't about funding, at least, not primarily. Taxation is about influencing behavior.

 

[Craig234]

What would your flat tax rate be?

Flat tax is a terrible idea. People making huge amounts should pay a larger share than low incomes. There's a reason Teddy Roosevelt fought for progressive tax rates which have always been on the books since, even if allowed to be corrupted.

 

[KevinKohler]

I know with Walmart, they don't want to pay full time for associates who don't stick around. Walmart has a high turn over rate for certain positions such as cashier.

Retailers have fixed ratios of fulltime to part time, and they do this because they need flexibility. Sales determines payroll, they typically shoot for 7% or sales to payroll. Well, seasonally, a weeks sales at one point in the year can fluctuate wildly. At my company, we have a 250K swing in sales just for the first of the month, for all the EBT users, for just one location. Part time employees allow us to flex their hours up for those busy times, and then flex back down when we're no longer projected to be 250K busier.

 

[Craig234]

It would not be increasing taxes ....

It would be reinstating taxes that have been illegitimately reduced over the past 42 years. 42 years of special interest tax reduction is easy to question.

It should not be difficult to understand reinstating these taxes. Which might reduce taxes for the middle class or at least reduce substantially the money borrowed from Wall Street banks. Reducing taxes translates into a deficit which creates a need to cover the tax loss revenue through borrowing to keep funding government operation.

It is increasing taxes on the wealthy as inequality is at a record, AND it's reinstating taxes wrongly reduced, and it's the single best thing we can do in policy.

 

[mrjurrs]

While I am, in general, a flat tax advocate I present a notion for what might be a legitimate reason for increasing the levels of taxation on the wealthiest of us.

That notion is based on the idea that much of what is increasing government spending is corruptive practice. Corporate welfare alone is ponderous. How it may be calculated can change it to massive.

Example: Walmart gets over a BILLION dollars a year in corporate welfare from state and federal government. However, if you include the over SIX BILLION in various social welfare paid to their employees because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage and their employees, even if working full time, still qualify for energy and food subsidies, etc. Well, if you count that welfare against Walmart that is over EIGHT BILLION A YEAR subsidy given to one of the richest, most profitable, corporations in the world by our government.

And the lion's share of the money that corrupts our state and federal governments, on the decisions on spending that drive up the cost of governing? It's not unions anymore. Nope. Unions are mostly dead, and those that aren't aren't spending remotely what they use to on lobbying efforts. Corporate spending on purchasing influence though has done nothing but increase.

So if it is the case that they get a great deal of the government pie, and since it is their money that is driving the majority of the corruptive practices that are raising the cost of governing, couldn't a legitimate argument be made that they should pay a greater percentage in footing that bill?

Just a notion for consideration...

The legitimate argument has two parts. First, the tax system set up in America is not designed for the mega wealth increases the digital era has created. Second, the wealthy make greater use of the commons than low income people.

And an aside...the only way a flat tax would be fair is if you eliminate the obligation for taxes on anything under @ $100k per year.

 

[Razoo]

LOL...A 90% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans "didn't matter" in the 1950s. Not a very compelling counter-argument.

applause applause backed with a standing ovation ......


It would not be increasing taxes ....

It would be reinstating taxes that have been illegitimately reduced over the past 42 years. 42 years of special interest tax reduction is easy to question.

It should not be difficult to understand reinstating these taxes. Which might reduce taxes for the middle class or at least reduce substantially the money borrowed from Wall Street banks. Reducing taxes translates into a deficit which creates a need to cover the tax loss revenue through borrowing to keep funding government operation.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

If the above is true, then why didn't we have a national health care system in the 50s and 60s, when the rich WERE paying higher tax rates?

Read about Harry Truman's efforts to create a national health care system in the late 1940s. He was blocked by wealthy private medical care lobbyists and interest groups, who have always been against a national heath care system. That is THE REASON. That is THE ONLY REASON.

The truth is, what we take in in taxes has absolutely nothing to do with what we spend every year. We could triple our tax intake, and still not set up universal healthcare. And we could also take in ZERO in taxes, and still fully fund out military.

My God. More utter, ridiculous nonsense. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Taxation isn't about funding, at least, not primarily. Taxation is about influencing behavior.

I can't read anymore. Just too annoying, too ignorant.

 

[KevinKohler]

Read about Harry Truman's efforts to create a national health care system in the late 1940s. He was blocked by wealthy private medical care lobbyists and interest groups, who have always been against a national heath care system. That is THE REASON. That is THE ONLY REASON.

Wow. Almost like...the amount taken in in taxes didn't matter, lol.

My God. More utter, ridiculous nonsense. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Then explain deficits and the national debt?

I can't read anymore. Just too annoying, too ignorant.

Suit yourself.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Wow. Almost like...the amount taken in in taxes didn't matter, lol.

Yeah....because it didn't. The lobbyists fighting Truman didn't give two shits about that.

Then explain deficits and the national debt?

Because we don't collect enough taxes. Because Reaganomics in the 1980s was a total failure. DUHHH!!

You're impressing me less and less with every post.

 

[KevinKohler]

Yeah....because it didn't. The lobbyists fighting Truman didn't give two shits about that.


Because we don't collect enough taxes. Because Reaganomics in the 1980s was a total failure. DUHHH!!

You're impressing me less and less with every post.

So, on the one hand, you acknowledge and understand that tax income wasn't the primary deciding factor in setting up universal healthcare..Healthcare...

As well as accepting the FACT that we spend more than we take in via taxes. What are we arguing about, again? That taxation doesn't really affect spending?

Your contention is that if we taxed the rich more, that we should be doing so so that can afford to do stuff like universal Healthcare. Mine is that, if we wanted it, we'd already have it, taxes be damned. The primary reason, imo, to tax the rich more, is to disincentivise this constant push to get richer and richer, typically by exploitation.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Your contention is that if we taxed the rich more, that we should be doing so so that can afford to do stuff like universal Healthcare. Mine is that, if we wanted it, we'd already have it, taxes be damned.

You must have no knowledge on public opinion polling when it comes to universal health care......just like your lack of knowledge of everything else.

 

[Jay59]

LOL...A 90% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans "didn't matter" in the 1950s. Not a very compelling counter-argument.

For once I agree with you. The 90% tax rate was designed to hobble economic growth during wartime. It served that purpose but was counterproductive by the early 1950s.

We saw the true effect after JFK redid the margin rates in 1962.

 

[KevinKohler]

You must have no knowledge on public opinion polling when it comes to universal health care......just like your lack of knowledge of everything else.

Public opinion polling doesn't determine policy, nor does taxation.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Retailers have fixed ratios of fulltime to part time, and they do this because they need flexibility. Sales determines payroll, they typically shoot for 7% or sales to payroll. Well, seasonally, a weeks sales at one point in the year can fluctuate wildly. At my company, we have a 250K swing in sales just for the first of the month, for all the EBT users, for just one location. Part time employees allow us to flex their hours up for those busy times, and then flex back down when we're no longer projected to be 250K busier.

Flexibility is only part of the equation.

 

[KLATTU]

Legitimate argument for taxing the wealthy? The fact that the 1950s was the most prosperous time period for the middle class in this country's history, when the wealthiest 1% of Americans was paying a 90% tax rate?

I would say that's a very legitimate reason.

Maybe you should try coming up with a legitimate reason for a flat tax.

If you could explain the causation there, you might have a legit case, but I doubt you can.

The honest 'reason' for taxing the wealthy is simple . They have the money, and the Government wants it.