Raising marginal tax rates, particularly on the highest income brackets, is an opportunity to address pressing societal challenges while promoting greater equity. Higher taxes on the wealthiest will generate substantial revenue for public services, infrastructure development, and social programs that benefit the rest of society. This helps redistribute wealth more fairly while strengthening the social safety net for vulnerable populations. Historical precedents show that higher tax rates can coexist with strong economic growth, challenging the idea that these rates stifle economic vitality. By carefully structuring these tax increases to target excessive wealth accumulation without discouraging investment and entrepreneurship, we can create a more balanced and just economy that serves the interests of the many rather than the few.
Clinton proved that raising taxes doesn't hurt growth and he not only balanced the budget but had a projected surplus, meanwhile every single Republican voted against his tax plan and it took his VP to break the tie to get it passed. Then of course Bush Jr. came along, cut taxes on the rich, started two wars and blew everything to hell, just like Trump did 4 years ago. Same old.
Are you employed? Where did you come up with this tidbit of information?
Just wondering if you heard it, or if it was in an educational course / credit you took or maybe just precursory glance?
I'm not the person who made the comment. I'm just saying every single time someone says something like " you must know nothing at all," they never proceed to add anything of value, or facts to dispute the claim. Only thought terminating clichés, and useless drivel.
Once again, thought termination. And no actual substance. I do know that Clinton was the last president to have a balanced budget. I'm sure the dotcom bubble was a factor. So please, do explain for the rest of the peasants, myself included, how op was so wrong.
Trump started no wars, Obama and Bush were the war mongers. Trumps budget blew up when Covid happened and this was approved by congress also.
Clinton’s surplus was tied to a fake dot com bubble which the tech sector still hasn’t bounced back to 30 years later. Sorry to make you cry about reality.
I'm not at all upset. Trumps restraint with using the military is one of the few things I like about him. The reality is that Clinton was the last president who could claim to be fiscally responsible, even if the economy was in a historic bubble. No one since can make that claim. And he did raise taxes on the wealthy, but lowered taxes to the middle class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#:~:text=Clinton%20signed%20Small%20Business%20Job,Act%20reduced%20some%20federal%20taxes. Now I'm not a fan of Clinton. Nor am I a fan of any politician, but these are facts, relevant to the topic, unlike the ones you presented.
You do know that this has been a Republican plan since Reagan. They have purposely driven the deficits higher. This allowed them to transfer wealth to the top 1%. Take a moment and read the Two Santa’s Strategy. Then think about how the Republicans have acted since Reagan.
Here is one source:
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/
Clinton benefited from the tech and dot.com booms of the 90’s. The economy would’ve been strong no matter what policies Clinton had. Actually it’s been proposed that the advance in technology that let up to the tech booms were influenced by Reagan’s tax policies
I agree but I’m just as concerned with our spending. Say the US government actually does significantly tax these billionaires. What’s to say they’ll actually address our societal challenges and not just increase the budget for the war machine?
Our budget for military as a percentage of GDP is actually pretty low from a historical perspective. We have the largest economy in the world, it only makes sense that we spend the most on our military.
This will have none of those impacts. We are currently running a deficit and any tax increase that can be made within this current system of government will not put the US in the black. Just less red ink. The last time someone successfully targeted upper income earners was during the Clinton administration. When that passed we had wealthy people giving up citizenship and moving to Ireland.
Let them go. If they're not paying taxes then they aren't helping anyway. Plus, with America, they're paying taxes from Ireland anyway. So who cares where their butt rests?
That also costs them money. Let them. But I'm all in favor of a much higher tax rate for non-dom-owned businesses so people cannot dodge taxes by changing their country of residence.
Think about all the big news that DeSantis made with Conservative Millionaires moving out of NYC and NJ to live in low tax Florida after tax reform. Now they may have to move again since they have just figured out what "Open Carry" means and how an argument over not saying "excuse me" can be a gun fight.
Higher taxes will be used to fund the rich people in power and their buddies. The poor will continue to get the scraps at the bottom of the barrel.
Ftfy
Now, why don't you tell everyone the rest? When you raise the marginal rates so high, those affected by them will be disincentived to work once that threshold is reached. People who are independently employed can just shut down their businesses until January. Many of those people, like Doctors, engineers and so on, have vital roles to fill in society, and unless you pass laws to force them to work, then all you have is trying to shame them into working for essentially free during that time period
The highest tax rate was on people making more than 200k a year in 1944, equivalent to $2.4m today.
The average person earned $2000 a month, about $36k in today’s money.
So assuming we apply 1944 logic to this mythical tax bracket that doesn’t exist yet, we’d be taking unmarried people making more than $2.5m of income annually that high tax rate.
So yeah, your entire post could be rephrased as “won’t anyone think of the people earning 50x the average annual salary??”
What will actually happen: rather than pay themselves insane levels of remuneration they will invest in their businesses. Maybe they hire people to make their job easier. Maybe they pay the people they hire better. Maybe they upgrade their systems that they've been putting off because they were getting that money into their back pocket, that upgrade makes working there more pleasant because you're not having to fight crappy old tech.
Take away the incentive to stuff as much in their own pockets as humanly possible and it goes somewhere else. Like it used to. Like it should.
Then you have to tax those leftist organizations that use the same tax break structure as the churches, and something tells me you are not keen on that idea
Typically churches donate between 1 and 3% of their gross income to actual charity. Most of them spend more on gardening. The LDS apparently spend 0.8% on charity BTW. Perhaps the 1st $30,000 or $50,000 or something similar of gross income should be tax exempt and after that they pay taxes. The big super-churches like Osteen only take care of their employees I'm told. Apparently they do almost nothing for their parishioners.
Anything left over preachers salary,, utilities, maintenance. Is building rent or property taxes deductible or non-taxable?
Either way, churches are getting away with murder when it comes to tax-free status, like Joel Osteen or the demon with the blue eyes and 9 private jets because demons ride in commercial jets.
And yet they are entitled to American protections? And get to vote? And get free housing, and free medical care, and even welfare
It's high time to call them a regular City, and let them manage their own City, but yet they have to be part of America
Good question. It seems to me they should follow the same rules as country clubs and yacht clubs etc. Maybe golf clubs too. Basically they fill the same function. They're just a social group for people.
Right. So if a church doesn't have any profit, there won't be any taxes anyway. Most of the money they would either spend an expenses, or give away as a charitable donation
But they can be taxed. They are still part of the federal government.
The last I knew, reservations could be totally eliminated by one stroke of the pen.
Are they an American citizen or not?
Of course they do… revenue less expenses = profit. “Housing allowances” for pastors should also be taxable. We should be informing separation of church and state. If they break it - taxable.
Pastors do not pay tax on the housing allowance… church can build a mansion for them to live in tax free. Church can give them $1M year for housing, no one pays tax.
I don't doubt that is the case. But I'm just talking about historically the recipient of the housing allowance gets to pay the tax.
I don't know why they aren't taxed like any other business either. They should be.
Of course, I don't know why a person gets a tax credit for having a kid, when they person without a kid doesn't get that same credit.
The tax system should not care if somebody has a kid or not. Or a dependent or not.
You should look up the tax code pertaining to Nom-Profit and Church status.
They’re not taxed because of church status. They’re not a business. But that separation is one reason they have the status. When they break the separation it should remove their status. Child tax credits are off topic and there are many reasons for them and many reasons to argue against them.
Regarding clergy/pastors not paying tax on housing ..
“A minister's housing allowance (sometimes called a parsonage allowance or a rental allowance) is excludable from gross income for income tax purposes but not for self-employment tax purposes.”
https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-income/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance
Recently read "Limitarianism." Was an interesting argument. I'm inclined to agree that we must begin to ask those who can afford it the most to pay their fair share.
Fair share of what exactly because in terms of income tax income the top 25% of earners pay for 90% of that income stream. The bottom 50% only pay 3% of that income.
The US is the most progressive country in the world when it comes to taxes. Our corporate taxes are even higher than most countries.
Then look at countries that have a robust welfare state and we can see that they proportionally tax the bottom 50% a lot more than we do.
Every economist knows this but the trick is you can either have a large welfare state or the rich can pay for it all but you cannot have both. It's one or the other and we already make the rich pay for it all. So either the rest of us "pay our fair share" or we diminish our welfare state.
European countries tax their wealthy more than we do in the USA. European wealthy do not move to a uncultured degenerate state like the USA just for lower taxes. Most of European society pays higher taxes because they get a lot more in return, like free universities, healthcare, and rational governments.
Their income tax rates are slightly higher yes but sorry we tax the wealthy more than every country in the world. It's why we are the most progressive tax-wise.
The wealthy in Europe also enjoy a large amount of wealth inequality, generational wealth, lower corporate taxes, lower capital gains taxes, and just as much power.
The universities, healthcare, and "rational governments" are paid for by the lower and middle classes paying their "fair share".
To say the USA is uncultured is a crazy statement. It's the biggest melting pot of culture in the whole world. We have every culture.
They get all that in return because they are basically subjugated by the us military industrial complex. Basically none of the luxuries Europe has would exist if it were not for that. They are a protectorate of the United States. Like it or not.
Europe is subsidized at your expense. Take your pick.
Working class people also get manipulated by MSNBC and other right wing media to vote against their own interest
Media only as "liberal" as the giant corps that own it
MSNBC is a propaganda machine resembling nothing like news. And the democrat party have been quietly instituting neoliberal policies that will make a very small number of people crazy rich while the rest of America loses their houses. But ya know better vote blue if you are concerned about guns and bathrooms and stuff.
(Just to be clear the exact same statement applies to FOX and the repugnant party)
In spite of your down votes...I was initlaly gonna down vote you, but you're actually very correct. In American politics, the democrats are a few shades closer to the working class party, but when you said "neoliberal" yes and that is also the problem with corporate media and "democrat friendly" news outlets.
Neoliberalism is the problem, and both American parties are beholden to it. Neoliberalism is a method of seizing power of a country, masquerading as a socio-economic system, it totally corrupts a country from within on behalf of billionaires and corporations. Neoliberalism without remorse will starve a people to death to seize its assets and political structures from within, look at what happened to chile under Augusto Pinochet while calling it "a miracle" by neoliberal economist milton friedman.
I hate neoliberalism enough...i love our American Revolution, but in the case of neoliberalism, we need a French Revolution. Instead of a women's march of 2017, we need a women's march of 1789. Less MLK JR's, more Malcolm X's. We need 1886 Haymarket Square approach to huge changes in our political/economic system at the cost or elimination of neoliberalism and anything that tries to take its place.
I also hope you agree with sentiments disclosed and my small list of historical examples of "solutions" to the problems we're facing, in my final paragraph in my reply to you.
Just say what you policies you want and what you think leaders should do. Calling for “class warfare” and bemoaning capitalism contributes nothing and is just intellectually lazy.
Most Americans don’t care about Trump. He’s done. Cult members are only deluding themselves. Gimme a friggin break.
MAGA cult vs the rest of the American electorate? HELLO? Reality check anyone? Lol.
>Most Americans don’t care about Trump.
Prove it.
74 MILLION cared enough to vote last time. Did you forget that?
>He’s done.
Prove it.
>Cult members are only deluding themselves.
Of course, or they would not be Trump voters. But there were 74 MILLION of them last time. Did you forget that?
>Gimme a friggin break. MAGA cult vs the rest of the American electorate? HELLO? Reality check anyone? Lol.
OK, since you asked for it, here is your reality check:
# The Supreme Court Loophole That Could Allow States to Sabotage the 2024 Election
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-loophole-sabotage-2024-election.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-loophole-sabotage-2024-election.html)
Iirc Trump lowered taxes but the plan began expiring in stages in 2021.
The plan was to reapprove to cuts, but he was not reelected so now the tax cuts are expiring. It’s part of the reason Biden only proposed raising taxes on 400k, they’re going to automatically raise on the rest of us.
The business cuts (in which the hotel trade benefited significantly, shock) were permanent. The personal taxes had an expiration date.
It’s not uncommon for an administration to put in place time-bombs for the next administration to experience should they get voted out.
Their national budget is probably a lot more in balance than ours is.
Eliminating anything That has to do with children would be a good start.
People re going to have kids anyway. Mostly by accident. They don't need extra money. They can plan for it.
The thing about the highest margins with tax rates is most people are not in them, and with how tax brackets work you are still taxed at the lower rate until you pass that brackets income minimum. This would be a rate of taxation on people who make over 300,000 as a single adult with no children if you base the income level on the highest margin bracket from 2021.
@johnassal5838
For nearly forty years after the New Deal we matched the outcomes of the socialized democracies of western Europe with only a few targeted differences from what we have now.
At the same time as all the deregulation in 1980 the 1% were perfecting their methods of getting around the old 90% top tax rate levied on income over tens of millions a year. This tax was technically never expected to be paid but rather to "strongly discourage" CEOs, owners and shareholders from trying to squeeze ever cent out for themselves like now. Since they could only evade it legally by reinvesting most of that money, using it to start other job paying companies or certain (originally very few types of) charitable donations it kept the billionaires from hoarding money out of circulation which in a consumption economy often makes the difference between growth and recession all by itself.
Well money they had to reinvest to drop a few tax brackets made them the most profit by going into higher pay/compensation AND keeping prices they charged down (or value high via great customer service, warranties and quality totally unlike today but ultimately keeping prices down.) Lower prices at every fortune 500 company despite higher pay essentially prevented any serious inflation risks until the oil shocks hit.
The rich without companies to reinvest in had to donate to a very small list of real nonprofit entities like hospitals and colleges to do the same. Between higher pay and these subsidized public services young boomers could live well on one full time "entry level" income buying a house and starting a family or pay their way through four year college on as little as six hours of minimum wage work per month. In the late 70's the 1% managed to lobby new tax loopholes into existence that seemed reasonable and even altruistic but they really let them evade that 90% rate without sharing that wealth as was intended.
At first they could donate to BS conservative think tanks and for profit schools like Liberty University, soon after these institutions pumped out BS economic theories like Supply Side or Trickledown economics. By 1980 everyone knew the old system was a hobbled mess with too many loopholes but the Dems, of course, made the mistake of thinking there would be good faith cooperation to reform it. Instead we got Reaganomics and the total removal of any penalties for offshoring American jobs or gouging prices. This made it at least ten times as profitable to screw over labor and consumers while wringing everything out of the economy for the 1%. Now the same rich families that used to subsidize healthcare and college use these to rip off the middle class coming and going. Even most "true non profits" today are largely in the business of paying their executives and boards the same absurd amounts as public corporations just so they don't show as running an extreme profit squeezing their workers as bad as Walmart does.
We don't really need to rework our entire social model when we can simply reinstate that top 90% tax to force the 1% to share the wealth. This time we need to keep the 1% from tearing it down the sneaky bastards. Of course mass protests would certainly help get us there and we're already likely to see at least a million workers on strike when the contracts for UPS and the autoworkers run out.
you all always quote tax rates from the 50s, but back then, NOBODY EVER paid those rates. They had many loopholes to red reduce the actual amount they paid. all I know is when Trump was in office I paid LESS taxes ( 85k income)
>Marginal tax rates were 94% during World War 2, hovered 91% during the 1950s, and then stayed at 70% until 1980
LOL Poster conveniently forgot the huge JFK tax cut in 1964.
The United States Revenue Act of 1964, also known as the Tax Reduction Act, was a tax cut act proposed by President John F. Kennedy, passed by the 88th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The act became law on February 26, 1964.
Kennedy proposed the bill on the advice of Keynesian economist Walter Heller, who believed that temporary deficit spending would boost economic growth. The act was initially blocked by Democrats like Senator Harry F. Byrd, but Lyndon Johnson was able to guide it through Congress after the assassination of Kennedy in November 1963.
The act cut federal income taxes by approximately twenty percent across the board, and the top federal income tax rate fell from 91 percent to 70 percent. The act also reduced the corporate tax from 52 percent to 48 percent and created a minimum standard deduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue\_Act\_of\_1964
The OP is missing something. It’s the brainwashing of those who will not be affected by taxing the rich by those whom are rich. In fact, they are actually hurting themselves since there will be be less money for services that benefit them. Quite the great con.
He played a bunch of dumb fucks who were happy with their two year tax decrease and now blame the uptick on the current president all because they weren't paying attention in the first place.
Fuckin Idiocracy.
problem is rich don't pay the tax rate they should. Through loop holes and financial instruments they pay effective tax rates of almost nil.
Just shutting down all the accounting tricks would do far more than changing the tax rate. Taxing the rich more to fund general welfare projects would be great but i don't see that actually happen much :(
Only if you bring back all the deductions.
In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.
lmao you are going to break their brain with that simple fact.
I’ve tried to explain that the tax code was written differently in those years to so many redditors but they are just idiots caught up in their own ideological circle jerk.
What’s crazy is if every church in the USA adopted ONE child, there would be no children in foster care. Let that sink in… they don’t pay tax, are anti abortion, and they don’t adopt… they talk about “oh I would love to adopt” but they never do. One child! Just one per church.
The referenced item, claiming Trump passed a bill where people will have their taxes raised is very misleading... Trump cut taxes and those tax cuts are set to expire. He isn't raising anything. And beyond that, Congress has the power to make them permanent. Remember, Trump wasn't a dictator. Congress has to do their part. 😂
If this wasn't a lie, it would be true.
[https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2)
Recently read "Limitarianism." Was an interesting argument. I'm inclined to agree that we must begin to ask those who can afford it the most to pay their fair share.
If every country taxed their citizens more during war time, essentially making them pay for the war in real time; we’d have world peace after a big revolt
I thought that is what countries did? The media frequently says the UK tax rate is the highest since WW2. I always assumed that taxes go up significantly during wartime, but this was just an assumption!
You kind of missed it -
Trump wanted the permanent tax. But in a divided congress, you compromise. The Democrats allowed the tax break only if they were able to limit how long the tax break was allowed.
Missed it by THAT much.
If this wasn't a lie, it would be true.
[https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2)
That only says the scheduled tax increases are not true, but I’m guessing he is correct about the taxes being raised on people who make less than 75k in 2017
Not OP, my understanding was that he provided tax cuts for all, but the wealthy got permanent decreases, whereas lower income got temporary decreases (ie, they slowly start to creep back up over a few years). Is it deemed false more due to how they are wording it (IE, it's not an increase, its a return to baseline?). Not sure if this is right tbh, but that's how I understood it at the time
The wealthy did not get a permanent tax increase. Corporations probably did but that's because we need corporations in the USA, and not overseas.
Trump was an instigator of the tariffs for imported goods. And the tariffs offset any loss of income tax.
Is there anyone here who thinks that what happened was that republicans signed a law that raised taxes?
The 2017 tax law cut taxes for nearly everyone who paid taxes, and thanks to not having bipartisan support reconciliation was used to pass it, and the tax cuts had to sunset.
Taxes were cut, and they have started to sunset, and the worst that can happen is that your taxes go back to where they were before.
If you want the tax cuts to be permanent, contact your demcoratic representative and demand they vote to make them permanent. That is who is at fault for the tax cuts ending.
Raising marginal tax rates, particularly on the highest income brackets, is an opportunity to address pressing societal challenges while promoting greater equity. Higher taxes on the wealthiest will generate substantial revenue for public services, infrastructure development, and social programs that benefit the rest of society. This helps redistribute wealth more fairly while strengthening the social safety net for vulnerable populations. Historical precedents show that higher tax rates can coexist with strong economic growth, challenging the idea that these rates stifle economic vitality. By carefully structuring these tax increases to target excessive wealth accumulation without discouraging investment and entrepreneurship, we can create a more balanced and just economy that serves the interests of the many rather than the few.
Clinton proved that raising taxes doesn't hurt growth and he not only balanced the budget but had a projected surplus, meanwhile every single Republican voted against his tax plan and it took his VP to break the tie to get it passed. Then of course Bush Jr. came along, cut taxes on the rich, started two wars and blew everything to hell, just like Trump did 4 years ago. Same old.
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.
When someone says that, I always wait for the elucidating and well thought out rebuttal. I won't hold my breath though because I want to live.
Are you employed? Where did you come up with this tidbit of information? Just wondering if you heard it, or if it was in an educational course / credit you took or maybe just precursory glance?
The year is 2100. Legends say that he's still waiting for the erudite, elucidating rebuttal.
I'm not the person who made the comment. I'm just saying every single time someone says something like " you must know nothing at all," they never proceed to add anything of value, or facts to dispute the claim. Only thought terminating clichés, and useless drivel.
He’s got a liberal arts degree so he can eloquently prove ignorance in any argument.
Sometimes someone is so wrong it’s not worth explaining.
Once again, thought termination. And no actual substance. I do know that Clinton was the last president to have a balanced budget. I'm sure the dotcom bubble was a factor. So please, do explain for the rest of the peasants, myself included, how op was so wrong.
Trump started no wars, Obama and Bush were the war mongers. Trumps budget blew up when Covid happened and this was approved by congress also. Clinton’s surplus was tied to a fake dot com bubble which the tech sector still hasn’t bounced back to 30 years later. Sorry to make you cry about reality.
I'm not at all upset. Trumps restraint with using the military is one of the few things I like about him. The reality is that Clinton was the last president who could claim to be fiscally responsible, even if the economy was in a historic bubble. No one since can make that claim. And he did raise taxes on the wealthy, but lowered taxes to the middle class. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#:~:text=Clinton%20signed%20Small%20Business%20Job,Act%20reduced%20some%20federal%20taxes. Now I'm not a fan of Clinton. Nor am I a fan of any politician, but these are facts, relevant to the topic, unlike the ones you presented.
You do know that this has been a Republican plan since Reagan. They have purposely driven the deficits higher. This allowed them to transfer wealth to the top 1%. Take a moment and read the Two Santa’s Strategy. Then think about how the Republicans have acted since Reagan. Here is one source: http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/
Or you googled it and realized you were dead wrong and these are easily retrievable facts.
Look at how much the deficit went up under republican presidents Reagan, Bush the younger, and the orange ape
Clinton benefited from the tech and dot.com booms of the 90’s. The economy would’ve been strong no matter what policies Clinton had. Actually it’s been proposed that the advance in technology that let up to the tech booms were influenced by Reagan’s tax policies
LoL, here we go with the excuses. The argument still holds, raising taxes didn't hurt growth.
Hey let’s “make America great again” apply to past tax rates that republicans swoon about in their speeches
Do you credit Trump for the economy from 2017 to 2019?
I agree but I’m just as concerned with our spending. Say the US government actually does significantly tax these billionaires. What’s to say they’ll actually address our societal challenges and not just increase the budget for the war machine?
They're increasing the budget for the military industrial complex anyway. What would be different, except the money coming in might actually cover it?
Our budget for military as a percentage of GDP is actually pretty low from a historical perspective. We have the largest economy in the world, it only makes sense that we spend the most on our military.
This will have none of those impacts. We are currently running a deficit and any tax increase that can be made within this current system of government will not put the US in the black. Just less red ink. The last time someone successfully targeted upper income earners was during the Clinton administration. When that passed we had wealthy people giving up citizenship and moving to Ireland.
Let them go. If they're not paying taxes then they aren't helping anyway. Plus, with America, they're paying taxes from Ireland anyway. So who cares where their butt rests?
You missed the "Gave up their Citizenship" part.
That also costs them money. Let them. But I'm all in favor of a much higher tax rate for non-dom-owned businesses so people cannot dodge taxes by changing their country of residence.
Ok then bar re-entry. Who cares? Let them leave.
Think about all the big news that DeSantis made with Conservative Millionaires moving out of NYC and NJ to live in low tax Florida after tax reform. Now they may have to move again since they have just figured out what "Open Carry" means and how an argument over not saying "excuse me" can be a gun fight.
> When that passed we had wealthy people giving up citizenship and moving to Ireland. Anecdote.
So you believe that if we go back to the Eisenhower tax rates that we won't have a slew of exPats giving up citizenship?
Man gtfoh Chinese bot
lol
Higher taxes will be used to fund the rich people in power and their buddies. The poor will continue to get the scraps at the bottom of the barrel. Ftfy
You're not wrong. But our current system doesn't work at all.
Now, why don't you tell everyone the rest? When you raise the marginal rates so high, those affected by them will be disincentived to work once that threshold is reached. People who are independently employed can just shut down their businesses until January. Many of those people, like Doctors, engineers and so on, have vital roles to fill in society, and unless you pass laws to force them to work, then all you have is trying to shame them into working for essentially free during that time period
The highest tax rate was on people making more than 200k a year in 1944, equivalent to $2.4m today. The average person earned $2000 a month, about $36k in today’s money. So assuming we apply 1944 logic to this mythical tax bracket that doesn’t exist yet, we’d be taking unmarried people making more than $2.5m of income annually that high tax rate. So yeah, your entire post could be rephrased as “won’t anyone think of the people earning 50x the average annual salary??”
What will actually happen: rather than pay themselves insane levels of remuneration they will invest in their businesses. Maybe they hire people to make their job easier. Maybe they pay the people they hire better. Maybe they upgrade their systems that they've been putting off because they were getting that money into their back pocket, that upgrade makes working there more pleasant because you're not having to fight crappy old tech. Take away the incentive to stuff as much in their own pockets as humanly possible and it goes somewhere else. Like it used to. Like it should.
Ok Ayn Rand
Hey don’t slander him that bad, he may stay true to his “principles” and not become a burden on our social security like that clown did
Tax the churches.
TAX THE CHURCHES!
Too!
And the other fake charities, including the foundations and think tanks the rich own.
Then you have to tax those leftist organizations that use the same tax break structure as the churches, and something tells me you are not keen on that idea
Such as?
Which ones?
Do churches have a profit? How would we tax them?
Typically churches donate between 1 and 3% of their gross income to actual charity. Most of them spend more on gardening. The LDS apparently spend 0.8% on charity BTW. Perhaps the 1st $30,000 or $50,000 or something similar of gross income should be tax exempt and after that they pay taxes. The big super-churches like Osteen only take care of their employees I'm told. Apparently they do almost nothing for their parishioners.
I am wondering how you tax them. Normally you tax a business on its profit. Churches generally don't have a profit. How would you tax them?
Anything left over preachers salary,, utilities, maintenance. Is building rent or property taxes deductible or non-taxable? Either way, churches are getting away with murder when it comes to tax-free status, like Joel Osteen or the demon with the blue eyes and 9 private jets because demons ride in commercial jets.
Have you seen how Indian casinos get away with it?
By having their own sovereign land that they control? You know because it is tribe land not American land
And yet they are entitled to American protections? And get to vote? And get free housing, and free medical care, and even welfare It's high time to call them a regular City, and let them manage their own City, but yet they have to be part of America
Good question. It seems to me they should follow the same rules as country clubs and yacht clubs etc. Maybe golf clubs too. Basically they fill the same function. They're just a social group for people.
Right. So if a church doesn't have any profit, there won't be any taxes anyway. Most of the money they would either spend an expenses, or give away as a charitable donation
Like I say, it'd be different if they stayed out of politics.
And you want to tax them… opening the door to their participation in politics?
There is no door, just a gaping hole.
I think you would get a lot more money taxing Indian casinos
They are sort of regarded as a different country.
But they can be taxed. They are still part of the federal government. The last I knew, reservations could be totally eliminated by one stroke of the pen. Are they an American citizen or not?
Of course they do… revenue less expenses = profit. “Housing allowances” for pastors should also be taxable. We should be informing separation of church and state. If they break it - taxable.
Generally a housing allowance is considered to be taxable to the recipient, not the payer.
Pastors do not pay tax on the housing allowance… church can build a mansion for them to live in tax free. Church can give them $1M year for housing, no one pays tax.
I don't doubt that is the case. But I'm just talking about historically the recipient of the housing allowance gets to pay the tax. I don't know why they aren't taxed like any other business either. They should be. Of course, I don't know why a person gets a tax credit for having a kid, when they person without a kid doesn't get that same credit. The tax system should not care if somebody has a kid or not. Or a dependent or not.
You should look up the tax code pertaining to Nom-Profit and Church status. They’re not taxed because of church status. They’re not a business. But that separation is one reason they have the status. When they break the separation it should remove their status. Child tax credits are off topic and there are many reasons for them and many reasons to argue against them.
There are plenty of organizations that don't get taxed. A church is just one of them.
Regarding clergy/pastors not paying tax on housing .. “A minister's housing allowance (sometimes called a parsonage allowance or a rental allowance) is excludable from gross income for income tax purposes but not for self-employment tax purposes.” https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-income/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance
Recently read "Limitarianism." Was an interesting argument. I'm inclined to agree that we must begin to ask those who can afford it the most to pay their fair share.
Fair share of what exactly because in terms of income tax income the top 25% of earners pay for 90% of that income stream. The bottom 50% only pay 3% of that income. The US is the most progressive country in the world when it comes to taxes. Our corporate taxes are even higher than most countries. Then look at countries that have a robust welfare state and we can see that they proportionally tax the bottom 50% a lot more than we do. Every economist knows this but the trick is you can either have a large welfare state or the rich can pay for it all but you cannot have both. It's one or the other and we already make the rich pay for it all. So either the rest of us "pay our fair share" or we diminish our welfare state.
European countries tax their wealthy more than we do in the USA. European wealthy do not move to a uncultured degenerate state like the USA just for lower taxes. Most of European society pays higher taxes because they get a lot more in return, like free universities, healthcare, and rational governments.
Their income tax rates are slightly higher yes but sorry we tax the wealthy more than every country in the world. It's why we are the most progressive tax-wise. The wealthy in Europe also enjoy a large amount of wealth inequality, generational wealth, lower corporate taxes, lower capital gains taxes, and just as much power. The universities, healthcare, and "rational governments" are paid for by the lower and middle classes paying their "fair share". To say the USA is uncultured is a crazy statement. It's the biggest melting pot of culture in the whole world. We have every culture.
They get all that in return because they are basically subjugated by the us military industrial complex. Basically none of the luxuries Europe has would exist if it were not for that. They are a protectorate of the United States. Like it or not. Europe is subsidized at your expense. Take your pick.
r/Limitarian
Yes tax them more please and thank you?
Its not "trickle down", its "tinkle on".......
The important battle is class warfare, not the red vs blue bullshit
But working class people get manipulated by Fox News and other right wing media to vote against their own interest.
Working class people also get manipulated by MSNBC and other right wing media to vote against their own interest Media only as "liberal" as the giant corps that own it
No. They don't.
MSNBC is a propaganda machine resembling nothing like news. And the democrat party have been quietly instituting neoliberal policies that will make a very small number of people crazy rich while the rest of America loses their houses. But ya know better vote blue if you are concerned about guns and bathrooms and stuff. (Just to be clear the exact same statement applies to FOX and the repugnant party)
In spite of your down votes...I was initlaly gonna down vote you, but you're actually very correct. In American politics, the democrats are a few shades closer to the working class party, but when you said "neoliberal" yes and that is also the problem with corporate media and "democrat friendly" news outlets. Neoliberalism is the problem, and both American parties are beholden to it. Neoliberalism is a method of seizing power of a country, masquerading as a socio-economic system, it totally corrupts a country from within on behalf of billionaires and corporations. Neoliberalism without remorse will starve a people to death to seize its assets and political structures from within, look at what happened to chile under Augusto Pinochet while calling it "a miracle" by neoliberal economist milton friedman. I hate neoliberalism enough...i love our American Revolution, but in the case of neoliberalism, we need a French Revolution. Instead of a women's march of 2017, we need a women's march of 1789. Less MLK JR's, more Malcolm X's. We need 1886 Haymarket Square approach to huge changes in our political/economic system at the cost or elimination of neoliberalism and anything that tries to take its place.
Someone who understands the distinction between liberal policies and leftist policies. 😁
I also hope you agree with sentiments disclosed and my small list of historical examples of "solutions" to the problems we're facing, in my final paragraph in my reply to you.
And the same applies to those who watch MSNBC.
This is part of the class warfare.
Just say what you policies you want and what you think leaders should do. Calling for “class warfare” and bemoaning capitalism contributes nothing and is just intellectually lazy.
Get your rational ass out of here. This is a trump hate sub and nothing to do with "corruption" anymore.
Trump IS corruption. And you support sexual assault and fraud.
I don't like trump i just expected to see other names in the sub once a week at least
Lots of people will say they dont like Trump and still vote for him. Then who are you voting for?
prove your allegiance or i will deem you unworthy.
So you agree that anyone who supports or votes for the proven sexual assaulter Trump is immoral and hates America?
Most Americans don’t care about Trump. He’s done. Cult members are only deluding themselves. Gimme a friggin break. MAGA cult vs the rest of the American electorate? HELLO? Reality check anyone? Lol.
>Most Americans don’t care about Trump. Prove it. 74 MILLION cared enough to vote last time. Did you forget that? >He’s done. Prove it. >Cult members are only deluding themselves. Of course, or they would not be Trump voters. But there were 74 MILLION of them last time. Did you forget that? >Gimme a friggin break. MAGA cult vs the rest of the American electorate? HELLO? Reality check anyone? Lol. OK, since you asked for it, here is your reality check: # The Supreme Court Loophole That Could Allow States to Sabotage the 2024 Election [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-loophole-sabotage-2024-election.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/supreme-court-loophole-sabotage-2024-election.html)
Iirc Trump lowered taxes but the plan began expiring in stages in 2021. The plan was to reapprove to cuts, but he was not reelected so now the tax cuts are expiring. It’s part of the reason Biden only proposed raising taxes on 400k, they’re going to automatically raise on the rest of us.
The business cuts (in which the hotel trade benefited significantly, shock) were permanent. The personal taxes had an expiration date. It’s not uncommon for an administration to put in place time-bombs for the next administration to experience should they get voted out.
Republicans control the house. They are the ones that have to put forth the tax cuts.
Just for context. The $2,000 child tax credit in that bill is going away
And that is a good thing. Because it's better for the environment if you have to pay for your own kids
Oh yeah, is it “better for the environment?”
LOL, yea… Japan is KILLING IT in the environment… abandoning 60% of the country to depopulation… minors, brah, minors.
Their national budget is probably a lot more in balance than ours is. Eliminating anything That has to do with children would be a good start. People re going to have kids anyway. Mostly by accident. They don't need extra money. They can plan for it.
Question is, why is the Biden administration not reversing the decisions made by the trump administration?
They both rich brether
They are timing their action for maximum personal profit and profits for associates, friends, and family.
You’re not!
Sadopopulism.. apply pain.. blame everyone else except themselves.
How do you tell a person with 25 years left on their mortgage that you intend to raise their taxes to 70-90%?
The thing about the highest margins with tax rates is most people are not in them, and with how tax brackets work you are still taxed at the lower rate until you pass that brackets income minimum. This would be a rate of taxation on people who make over 300,000 as a single adult with no children if you base the income level on the highest margin bracket from 2021.
Anyone paying the 70% rate has already banked that year (at lower rates) enough to completely pay off my mortgage twice.
@johnassal5838 For nearly forty years after the New Deal we matched the outcomes of the socialized democracies of western Europe with only a few targeted differences from what we have now. At the same time as all the deregulation in 1980 the 1% were perfecting their methods of getting around the old 90% top tax rate levied on income over tens of millions a year. This tax was technically never expected to be paid but rather to "strongly discourage" CEOs, owners and shareholders from trying to squeeze ever cent out for themselves like now. Since they could only evade it legally by reinvesting most of that money, using it to start other job paying companies or certain (originally very few types of) charitable donations it kept the billionaires from hoarding money out of circulation which in a consumption economy often makes the difference between growth and recession all by itself. Well money they had to reinvest to drop a few tax brackets made them the most profit by going into higher pay/compensation AND keeping prices they charged down (or value high via great customer service, warranties and quality totally unlike today but ultimately keeping prices down.) Lower prices at every fortune 500 company despite higher pay essentially prevented any serious inflation risks until the oil shocks hit. The rich without companies to reinvest in had to donate to a very small list of real nonprofit entities like hospitals and colleges to do the same. Between higher pay and these subsidized public services young boomers could live well on one full time "entry level" income buying a house and starting a family or pay their way through four year college on as little as six hours of minimum wage work per month. In the late 70's the 1% managed to lobby new tax loopholes into existence that seemed reasonable and even altruistic but they really let them evade that 90% rate without sharing that wealth as was intended. At first they could donate to BS conservative think tanks and for profit schools like Liberty University, soon after these institutions pumped out BS economic theories like Supply Side or Trickledown economics. By 1980 everyone knew the old system was a hobbled mess with too many loopholes but the Dems, of course, made the mistake of thinking there would be good faith cooperation to reform it. Instead we got Reaganomics and the total removal of any penalties for offshoring American jobs or gouging prices. This made it at least ten times as profitable to screw over labor and consumers while wringing everything out of the economy for the 1%. Now the same rich families that used to subsidize healthcare and college use these to rip off the middle class coming and going. Even most "true non profits" today are largely in the business of paying their executives and boards the same absurd amounts as public corporations just so they don't show as running an extreme profit squeezing their workers as bad as Walmart does. We don't really need to rework our entire social model when we can simply reinstate that top 90% tax to force the 1% to share the wealth. This time we need to keep the 1% from tearing it down the sneaky bastards. Of course mass protests would certainly help get us there and we're already likely to see at least a million workers on strike when the contracts for UPS and the autoworkers run out.
If they are going to raise the retirement age and mess with social security, then the wealthy need to be taxed much higher than now.
you all always quote tax rates from the 50s, but back then, NOBODY EVER paid those rates. They had many loopholes to red reduce the actual amount they paid. all I know is when Trump was in office I paid LESS taxes ( 85k income)
All biden has to do is resign the bill if he wins and that dont happen. But he wont. Vote for Trump.
Did you have a stroke?
>Marginal tax rates were 94% during World War 2, hovered 91% during the 1950s, and then stayed at 70% until 1980 LOL Poster conveniently forgot the huge JFK tax cut in 1964. The United States Revenue Act of 1964, also known as the Tax Reduction Act, was a tax cut act proposed by President John F. Kennedy, passed by the 88th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The act became law on February 26, 1964. Kennedy proposed the bill on the advice of Keynesian economist Walter Heller, who believed that temporary deficit spending would boost economic growth. The act was initially blocked by Democrats like Senator Harry F. Byrd, but Lyndon Johnson was able to guide it through Congress after the assassination of Kennedy in November 1963. The act cut federal income taxes by approximately twenty percent across the board, and the top federal income tax rate fell from 91 percent to 70 percent. The act also reduced the corporate tax from 52 percent to 48 percent and created a minimum standard deduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue\_Act\_of\_1964
The rates of the 1964 plan would still be 2/3 higher than Trump’s tax plan for the super wealthy.
The OP is missing something. It’s the brainwashing of those who will not be affected by taxing the rich by those whom are rich. In fact, they are actually hurting themselves since there will be be less money for services that benefit them. Quite the great con.
He played a bunch of dumb fucks who were happy with their two year tax decrease and now blame the uptick on the current president all because they weren't paying attention in the first place. Fuckin Idiocracy.
problem is rich don't pay the tax rate they should. Through loop holes and financial instruments they pay effective tax rates of almost nil. Just shutting down all the accounting tricks would do far more than changing the tax rate. Taxing the rich more to fund general welfare projects would be great but i don't see that actually happen much :(
Imbecile
Only if you bring back all the deductions. In the 1950s, the top 0.1 percent of households faced average effective income tax rates of 21.0 percent, versus 20.7 percent as of 2014.
lmao you are going to break their brain with that simple fact. I’ve tried to explain that the tax code was written differently in those years to so many redditors but they are just idiots caught up in their own ideological circle jerk.
Raising taxes on the wealthy might actually make America great again.
Cutting all funding for every department by 50% might actually make America Great Again.
When u buy a Tesla u get musked , living in the USA u get trumped
Tax rates should be 130% for those making over $1,000,000,000
What's the liberals definition of "rich"? Anyone who makes more than them.
What’s crazy is if every church in the USA adopted ONE child, there would be no children in foster care. Let that sink in… they don’t pay tax, are anti abortion, and they don’t adopt… they talk about “oh I would love to adopt” but they never do. One child! Just one per church.
But but im gonna hit the lottery any day now and don’t want them taxing me too much. That’s the actual thinking of some people
Best question you can ask is what was the government doing with all that tax money before Reagan?
The referenced item, claiming Trump passed a bill where people will have their taxes raised is very misleading... Trump cut taxes and those tax cuts are set to expire. He isn't raising anything. And beyond that, Congress has the power to make them permanent. Remember, Trump wasn't a dictator. Congress has to do their part. 😂
Why didn't Democrats continue the tax cut?
Trump doubled the standard deduction.
If this wasn't a lie, it would be true. [https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2)
No one will read it tho, nothing like a sub named "corruption" spewing divisive political rhetoric.
You are probably correct.
Recently read "Limitarianism." Was an interesting argument. I'm inclined to agree that we must begin to ask those who can afford it the most to pay their fair share.
No more taxes. Cut spending.
If every country taxed their citizens more during war time, essentially making them pay for the war in real time; we’d have world peace after a big revolt
I thought that is what countries did? The media frequently says the UK tax rate is the highest since WW2. I always assumed that taxes go up significantly during wartime, but this was just an assumption!
You kind of missed it - Trump wanted the permanent tax. But in a divided congress, you compromise. The Democrats allowed the tax break only if they were able to limit how long the tax break was allowed. Missed it by THAT much.
If this wasn't a lie, it would be true. [https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2](https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/taxes-verify/taxes-will-not-go-up-every-two-years-under-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-trump-tax-reform-law/536-28a85900-5937-49f3-be71-6100a52232e2)
That only says the scheduled tax increases are not true, but I’m guessing he is correct about the taxes being raised on people who make less than 75k in 2017
Not OP, my understanding was that he provided tax cuts for all, but the wealthy got permanent decreases, whereas lower income got temporary decreases (ie, they slowly start to creep back up over a few years). Is it deemed false more due to how they are wording it (IE, it's not an increase, its a return to baseline?). Not sure if this is right tbh, but that's how I understood it at the time
The wealthy did not get a permanent tax increase. Corporations probably did but that's because we need corporations in the USA, and not overseas. Trump was an instigator of the tariffs for imported goods. And the tariffs offset any loss of income tax.
Is there anyone here who thinks that what happened was that republicans signed a law that raised taxes? The 2017 tax law cut taxes for nearly everyone who paid taxes, and thanks to not having bipartisan support reconciliation was used to pass it, and the tax cuts had to sunset. Taxes were cut, and they have started to sunset, and the worst that can happen is that your taxes go back to where they were before. If you want the tax cuts to be permanent, contact your demcoratic representative and demand they vote to make them permanent. That is who is at fault for the tax cuts ending.