Do you support a 70%+ tax bracket for top earners? (1 Viewer)

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,272
Reaction score
16,549
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
Oooooooo capitals. Must be important.

Taxation isn’t wrong, nor is it why the US broke from England. The phrase is no taxation without representation. The founding fathers weren’t against taxation per say, so long as they had a voice in it
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,278
Reaction score
33,868
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
And look, I hold out some hope that there will eventually be some investment with the Tax savings, however, I do believe things like mergers and acquisitions will be more likely, along with stock buy backs. Use it as an opportunity to lower corporate debt.

There is still a lot of confusion about the new tax provisions that aren't all resolved. Potentially, we may see some action after filing dates, mostly for smaller businesses, as Corporations already have a decent handle on it.

And again, the macro data isn't showing any effect at the moment.
 

xardoz

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
823
Offline
First, the half crackpot give me liberty article is a joke.

Second, you don’t know Jack about automotive history with that statement.
I was not talking about the technology, I was talking about the profit and sales during that time frame. After the post-war surge of sales (after the government allowed more civilian production), people did not have the discretionary income to buy new cars - and similar to depression era - used cars and used car sales became more popular.
 

Yoweigh

is not a rookie
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
3,486
Reaction score
3,609
Location
Freret
Offline
Actually, what you call progressive taxation is repression.
Still wrong.
Quit being arse-hurt and just keep on topic.
Hypocrite.
I uphold my part of societal responsibility.
Then shut up and pay your taxes like everyone else.
Oh, now I have to shut up because your little feelers are hurt? You cannot engage in a little debate.
Quit being arse-hurt and just stay on topic.
 
OP
OP

SaintInBucLand

Veteran Starter
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
630
Reaction score
657
Offline
I want to revise the title if a mode could. I don't think 70% is enough on top earners and believe that number should be 94% like it used to be in the 1940s.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,278
Reaction score
33,868
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Oooooooo capitals. Must be important.

Taxation isn’t wrong, nor is it why the US broke from England. The phrase is no taxation without representation. The founding fathers weren’t against taxation per say, so long as they had a voice in it
"
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

"
 

xardoz

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
823
Offline
Taxation isn’t wrong, nor is it why the US broke from England. The phrase is no taxation without representation. The founding fathers weren’t against taxation per say, so long as they had a voice in it
That is the most wrong statement I have heard in a long time.

Did you ever hear about the Boston Tea Party? Sugar Act? Stamp Act?

From a 3 second google search:
In the years between 1765 and 1775 Britain greatly increased the tax burden on the American colonists by raising customs duties. This increased the tax burden by a massive 8 pence per head, to 20 pence per year — or 6% of the taxes that people in Britain itself had to pay, rather than 4%.

...and
The British government decided to make the American colonies pay a large share of the war debt from the French and Indian War. Through the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, and other taxes, the British tried to collect taxes that the American people considered harsh.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,278
Reaction score
33,868
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
That is the most wrong statement I have heard in a long time.

Did you ever hear about the Boston Tea Party? Sugar Act? Stamp Act?

From a 3 second google search:
In the years between 1765 and 1775 Britain greatly increased the tax burden on the American colonists by raising customs duties. This increased the tax burden by a massive 8 pence per head, to 20 pence per year — or 6% of the taxes that people in Britain itself had to pay, rather than 4%.

...and
The British government decided to make the American colonies pay a large share of the war debt from the French and Indian War. Through the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, and other taxes, the British tried to collect taxes that the American people considered harsh.
I just posted the declaration of independence, which refutes your point, unless you're splitting hairs about Representation and "without our consent"

So, they didn't raise taxes, but customs duties? So, abolishing an income tax and moving back towards customs duties and tariffs would result in a huge burden on most Americans as consumers.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,272
Reaction score
16,549
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
That is the most wrong statement I have heard in a long time.

Did you ever hear about the Boston Tea Party? Sugar Act? Stamp Act?

From a 3 second google search:
In the years between 1765 and 1775 Britain greatly increased the tax burden on the American colonists by raising customs duties. This increased the tax burden by a massive 8 pence per head, to 20 pence per year — or 6% of the taxes that people in Britain itself had to pay, rather than 4%.

...and
The British government decided to make the American colonies pay a large share of the war debt from the French and Indian War. Through the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, and other taxes, the British tried to collect taxes that the American people considered harsh.
No it isn’t. Why did the colonists organize the Boston Tea Party? Did the colonists get to have representation for the sugar act or stamp act? No. Ever hear of the saying “no taxation without representation?

While these were customs duties, not personal income tax, it was still a tax by another term.
 

porculator

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
6,195
Reaction score
7,454
Age
34
Offline
I want to revise the title if a mode could. I don't think 70% is enough on top earners and believe that number should be 94% like it used to be in the 1940s.
That's true, there is a Crisis at the Southern Border we have to pay for.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,607
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
I want to revise the title if a mode could. I don't think 70% is enough on top earners and believe that number should be 94% like it used to be in the 1940s.
If you'd make a good case for doing this, I'd be open to considering this. You've parroted several different positions in this thread without making a case for your position, so I don't find your comments persuasive or credible.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
24,758
Reaction score
12,503
Age
50
Location
Yacolt, WA
Online
Actually, what you call progressive taxation is repression. What gives you (anyone) the right to another's property (income)? Not to mention the threat of you losing EVERYTHING you have if you do something wrong on that piece of paper - regardless of Mens Rea? What about the shift of the burden of proof to prove your INNOCENCE rather than the government prove your GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt? (Which is what happens filing your income taxes)

Many of the prohibitions on government that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution guaranteed no longer protect us or our property from an over-active government.
Taurus said:
This idea that anyone is an island, utterly free from the society in which they were born, raised and now reside is ludicrous.
- nobody said that. Quit being arse-hurt and just keep on topic.
Taurus said:
You said that exact thing. That nobody has any right to another's labor or income. One assumes government is part of that blanket "nobody".
Again, you have no right to the fruits of another's labor.
Taurus said:
You just said it again.
If you read Rousseau's "Social Contract", technically, since the government has violated it's contract with the people of this country - I am actually no longer bound to keep my part of the contract. The social contract binds the government to the governed and society as a whole. The responsiblity is on the side of the government. It is up to the people to remove their validation of that contract when government violates said contract.

Taurus said:
Move the goalposts, much? So first, nobody has a right to anyone else's labor. (Easily shot down) Then it's "Well, since the gubment's screwed up so badly, they've forfeited the right to my taxes."

Which is an interesting position, but ultimately moot. Next time you go a day without using government services, send me a smoke signal.
Taurus said:
Want to live untethered to societal responsibility? Want to live somewhere you don't have to pay for things provided by other people that you use? Fine. There's millions of acres near the poles you can move to. Break off a tree branch, knap yourself a spear point and get down with your bear-food self.
I uphold my part of societal responsibility. At this time, the only entity exercising untethered societal responsibility is the government. They are not being responsible to the taxpayer with their budgeting, management and organization. (Hell, any of the words that made up POSDCORB)

I am about RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. They do not need to take 70% of ANYONE'S income. Government spends too much and is in too many places and too many businesses. Name one thing you can do that is not taxed or regulated.... Try it. The Bill of Rights has been eroded and property is taken without our consent. If you want to.

Taurus said:
Poor goalposts, they're getting dizzy. Now it's that government spends money on frivolous things and has fingers in too many pies. Which is actually a legitimate discussion. Let's have that one and leave the dumb-arse Libertarian fantasies on the cutting room floor, eh?
 
Last edited:

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
21,923
Reaction score
9,607
Age
48
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
Many of the prohibitions on government that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution guaranteed no longer protect us or our property from an over-active government.



- nobody said that. Quit being arse-hurt and just keep on topic. Again, you have no right to the fruits of another's labor.

If you read Rousseau's "Social Contract", technically, since the government has violated it's contract with the people of this country - I am actually no longer bound to keep my part of the contract. The social contract binds the government to the governed and society as a whole. The responsiblity is on the side of the government. It is up to the people to remove their validation of that contract when government violates said contract.


I uphold my part of societal responsibility. At this time, the only entity exercising untethered societal responsibility is the government. They are not being responsible to the taxpayer with their budgeting, management and organization. (Hell, any of the words that made up POSDCORB)

I am about RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. They do not need to take 70% of ANYONE'S income. Government spends too much and is in too many places and too many businesses. Name one thing you can do that is not taxed or regulated.... Try it. The Bill of Rights has been eroded and property is taken without our consent. If you want to.
This post is a bit confusing, I'm not following who's saying what here.
 
OP
OP

SaintInBucLand

Veteran Starter
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
630
Reaction score
657
Offline
If you'd make a good case for doing this, I'd be open to considering this. You've parroted several different positions in this thread without making a case for your position, so I don't find your comments persuasive or credible.
I thought it was fairly common sense if you know your history. Our country was very prosperous during a time when we have high rates on top earners. Especially the late 40s and through the 50s.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom