hippie_hunter
The King is Back!
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2003
- Messages
- 53,322
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
While he has manipulated his income to reduce his 39.6% rate to 13%, he would have manipulated his 91% tax rate to the 20% rate that everyone paid in the 1950's.
Bolded is the adjusted Gross income. Between 1958 and 2010 the top 3% got 1.85 times more of that piece of the pie, so in theory there share of taxes should have went up 1.85 times.In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
It was a rate that everyone paid regardless of income class, thus furthering my point of how the poor and middle class had the larger tax burden back then. But reducing your rates by 26.6% is playing the system far less than reducing your rates by up to 70%.I am not denying that people manipulated the system to work to their advantage in the 50s and practically nobody actually paid the top tax rates, but 20% to me sounds like more then 13%
Bolded is the adjusted Gross income. Between 1958 and 2010 the top 3% got 1.85 times more of that piece of the pie, so in theory there share of taxes should have went up 1.85 times.
29.2 X 1.85 = 54.03%
Currently they are only paying 51% of the taxes which means that the 3% extra is being paid for by the 97%
Thanks for proving my point
Maybe if they could find ways to get the adjusted gross income back to 15% for the top 3% we would be better off.
Ummm...no I didn't prove your point. While you can certainly argue about the issue of income inequality, that's a completely separate issue. The issue here is the tax burden and what you're calling for is a return where the poor paid 20% as opposed to almost nothing today (again, making your point ignorant because many do not pay taxes today with the current system, not the everyone else that you're making it out to be) and where the rich scammed the system far more easily than they do today. Your point is also ignorant of how dramatically different the economies of 2015 and 1950 are and ignorant of the history as to why the American middle class was far more prosperous in the 1950's than they are today.
Except the system has NEVER worked that way. It has always been based on a series of brackets that pays a certain percentage.Simple fact is is I make 1 Million dollars one year, then 10M the next, I should be paying 10 times the taxes in that second year.
Which is why I picked hypothetical values that are in the highest bracket, but you make a good point, I should be paying MORE then 10 times what I paid in the first year because the first 400k will be taxed differently in both yearsExcept the system has NEVER worked that way. It has always been based on a series of brackets that pays a certain percentage.
Now that is a completely different, and dare I say more interesting, discussion to have on how to reform the tax system that has essentially been in place since the inception of the progressive income tax.
So I have a question, if all of those Senators are arrested for breaching the Logan Act, what happens? Re-election or do other Republicans take their places?
I've only ever seen two examples of this in the past, one of them (Nixon) received a complete pardon, and the other (Reagan) was tried and acquitted (until more evidence was brought forth after his death).The Logan Act gets thrown around way to much, it's supposed to be used in rare times if our country is at war with somebody and you have somebody who isn't the president in direct communication with that countries leader.
Nobody is going to be tried for treason.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.Now hypothetical it does happen I believe each state has their own rules what to do, but most would probably have the governor replace the Senator, then have a re-election within a year
I've only ever seen two examples of this in the past, one of them (Nixon) received a complete pardon, and the other (Reagan) was tried and acquitted (until more evidence was brought forth after his death)
What I mean to say is that I've never seen it be brought up in a situation where it happened, as it happened. Also, in my understanding of legal precedence, you're supposed to follow the law, and once it's proven to be a stupid law, you make amendments.When I said nobody will be tried for treason I mean in regards to the letter that 47 Senators sent
To me bringing up the Logan Act is one of those things like making a nazi reference that just drag down the debate quickly and make whoever brings it up lose instantly.
There is some precedent to this, but not to this scale. It's incredible that 47 Republicans signed this letter, and I think it really shows how extreme the party has come.
I don't see how informing a negotiating party of our laws is extreme or a betrayal.
A freshman Republican senator who organized a controversial open letter to Iranian leaders will meet Tuesday with lobbyists for defense contractors.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) initiated the letter, signed by 47 Republican senators, that warned officials from the Islamic Republic that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire when he leaves office in 2017.
Cotton is scheduled to appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying group for defense contractors, less than 24 hours after the letter was sent, reported The Intercept.
Because their words were meant to thwart negotiations that were underway. They essentially said they were already going to shoot down any treaties that Obama signed (a product of negotiations they know NOTHING about yet). So regardless of what the product of the talks are, they said they'll shoot it down.I don't see how informing a negotiating party of our laws is extreme or a betrayal.