The Top 1% Super Rich Americans

No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorToriko42

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

No. You could take every penny from every millionaire and billionaire in the U.S. and that would only cover one-third of the deficit. Going after them is pure politics and clearly won't fix anything.

And the first thing the uber rich do when you increase their taxes is stick their money in off shore accounts and investments. So it actually has a negative effect.

KC_Hokie

Not sure where the research is, but the video states that the rich made 11 trillion this past year, pretty sure that's more than 1/3 of the deficit if true.

There are only an estimated 400 billionaires in the U.S. today (probably fewer after today). That's accumulated wealth over years.

The math seems way off to say rich people combined made 11 trillion just in one year.

Yes they've accumulated wealth over the years, but remember more are joining the ranks all the time, it's always changing. I'd say 11 trillion is a bit high, but I bet that it would be closer to half a trillion is made each year.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorKC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorcomp_atkins

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. Not sure why some don't get that.KC_Hokie

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] how come unemployment is so high then if income tax rates have been lowered so much over the past few decades? comp_atkins

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. Not sure why some don't get that.KC_Hokie

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] how come unemployment is so high then if income tax rates have been lowered so much over the past few decades? mexicangordo

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

Individual income taxes haven't changed in years.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Income taxes haven't been dropped in years. The tax code keeps getting more complicated. More regulations keep getting added hindering business. Obama-care creates huge uncertainty.

On top of that we have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world combined with a strange and complex tax code including thousands of loopholes.

KC_Hokie

Individual income taxes haven't changed in years.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"] Say what? Corporate taxes have been at 35% with a two year compromise to Republicans to sustain that, that does not even include the debt plan accommodations that were just negotiated....While the rest of America gets taxed and further cuts. The damage has been done, its only a matter of time before things implode on theme selves.

mexicangordo

Individual income taxes haven't changed in years.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Nope, that only works when tax rates are so high that the rise in revenue resulting from the rise in production resulting from tax cuts more than offsets the loss in revenue from reduced tax rates. Empirical studies suggest that today, the rise in production would only partially offset the revenue loss.chessmaster1989

Tranbandt and Uhlig (2009), "How Far Are We From the Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited". Read it.

Re: Bush tax cuts, opinions on the subject are mixed, but the tentative consensus is that they reduced revenue. However, the other examples you cited are valid, but not as relevant to the issue as empirical evidence.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The corporate tax rate is 39.2% including loopholes and the 2nd highest in the world.

Individual income taxes haven't changed in years.

KC_Hokie

The AEI-American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy research (A US government regulated and owned website) Says 35% and is dated in 2011. :|

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]In the last 100 years the income tax was dropped four times. All four times tax revenue increased (1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2000s). chessmaster1989

Tranbandt and Uhlig (2009), "How Far Are We From the Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited". Read it.

Re: Bush tax cuts, opinions on the subject are mixed, but the tentative consensus is that they reduced revenue. However, the other examples you cited are valid, but not as relevant to the issue as empirical evidence.

For the record I'm a libertarian and not a Bush fan. The neo-cons screwed up and increased spending.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorKC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"] Really because evidence says otherwise...not to mention paying less with shinnanigans and loopholes.

mexicangordo

The AEI-American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy research (A US government regulated and owned website) Says 35% and is dated in 2011. :|

They aren't some magazine, newspaper or institute.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. Not sure why some don't get that.KC_Hokie

You are confusing personal income tax with corporate income tax. The top 1% of wealthy Americans refers to personal income.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]My source is the OECD Tax Database.

KC_Hokie

The AEI-American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy research (A US government regulated and owned website) Says 35% and is dated in 2011. :|

They aren't some magazine, newspaper or institute.

[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]My source is the OECD Tax Database.

KC_Hokie

The AEI-American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy research (A US government regulated and owned website) Says 35% and is dated in 2011. :|

They aren't some magazine, newspaper or institute.

Dude, it's_35%. That link is just adding onto other links to confirm that number.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Tranbandt and Uhlig (2009), "How Far Are We From the Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited". Read it.

Re: Bush tax cuts, opinions on the subject are mixed, but the tentative consensus is that they reduced revenue. However, the other examples you cited are valid, but not as relevant to the issue as empirical evidence.

KC_Hokie

For the record I'm a libertarian and not a Bush fan. The neo-cons screwed up and increased spending.

I was referring more to the academic research paper I cited, which provides econometric evidence that tax raises today will increase revenue.

And to attribute everything you just said to the Bush tax cuts is silly. They were enacted during a recession, and while they doubtless helped to speed up recovery, they are not the sole factor.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No not exactly. Companies create jobs....not wealthy individuals. LJS9502_basic

You are confusing personal income tax with corporate income tax. The top 1% of wealthy Americans refers to personal income.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No not exactly. Companies create jobs....not wealthy individuals. LJS9502_basic

That's what most don't understand.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Wrong. Small businessmen create more jobs than corporations. They file individual income taxes not corporate taxes.KC_Hokie

That's what most don't understand.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Got anything to say on this KC?chessmaster1989

For the record I'm a libertarian and not a Bush fan. The neo-cons screwed up and increased spending.

And, again, I didn't like Bush and the neo-cons. But I'm objective enough to see they worked before starting another war, increasing the size of government and increasing spending.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Small businesses aren't necessarily run by the very wealthy. You are confusing personal income tax with corporate income tax. The top 1% of wealthy Americans refers to personal income.LJS9502_basic

That's what most don't understand.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Small businessmen and the wealthy get taxed the same way if you raise income taxes.

That's what most don't understand.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Bush tax cuts of 2003 helped produce record levels of tax revenue, stocks rose 20%, and eight million jobs were created.

For the record I'm a libertarian and not a Bush fan. The neo-cons screwed up and increased spending.

KC_Hokie

And, again, I didn't like Bush and the neo-cons. But I'm objective enough to see they worked before starting another war, increasing the size of government and increasing spending.

No, it's no an historical fact, and you're making the simple mistake of attributing all growth post-Bush tax cuts (as the economy was coming out a recession) to the Bush tax cuts. It's a disputed conclusion, and there is academic research that suggests they have lowered revenue substantially.

But, what's more important is how taxes will affect revenue today. Historical evidence is not what's important here, econometric analysis is. And econometric analysis suggests that raising taxes today will, in fact, increase tax revenue.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Personal income tax.....not corporate.:|LJS9502_basic

I don't think the average person understands that.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorKC_Hokie

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes. Small businessmen pay personal income tax not corporate taxes. So they would be hit if you raised the tax rates. Not just the rich. And small businessmen create more jobs than corporations.KC_Hokie

I don't think the average person understands that.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] I was referring more to the article I cited, which provides econometric evidence that tax raises today will increase revenue. And to attribute everything you just said to the Bush tax cuts is silly. They were enacted during a recession, and while they doubtless helped to speed up recovery, they are not the sole factor.chessmaster1989

And, again, I didn't like Bush and the neo-cons. But I'm objective enough to see they worked before starting another war, increasing the size of government and increasing spending.

No, it's no an historical fact, and you're making the simple mistake of attributing all growth post-Bush tax cuts (as the economy was coming out a recession) to the Bush tax cuts. It's a disputed conclusion, and there is academic research that suggests they have lowered revenue substantially.

But, what's more important is how taxes will affect revenue today. Historical evidence is not what's important here, econometric analysis is. And econometric analysis suggests that raising taxes today will, in fact, increase tax revenue.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes. Small businessmen pay personal income tax not corporate taxes. So they would be hit if you raised the tax rates. Not just the rich. And small businessmen create more jobs than corporations.KC_Hokie

I don't think the average person understands that.

[QUOTE="Baconnaise"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Huh? Rich people still control a lot of the system under a democracy. Maybe more so.sonicare

Honestly, I wouldn't consider the top 1% of Americans "super rich". That's more like the top 0.0001%, or about 1% of all millionaires. The traditional definition of what constitutes being "rich" has seriously devalued with inflation and currency shifts.

jetpower3

If they're not "rich", what does that make the middle class? Destitute?

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Honestly, I wouldn't consider the top 1% of Americans "super rich". That's more like the top 0.0001%, or about 1% of all millionaires. The traditional definition of what constitutes being "rich" has seriously devalued with inflation and currency shifts.

topgunmv

If they're not "rich", what does that make the middle class? Destitute?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That depends on how the business is set up first of all....and second of all the thread is about the top 1% of the super wealthy Americans....not businesses. The personal income tax of the top 1%....and I doubt small business owners are in that category....or it would certainly be higher than 1%.

nocoolnamejim

I don't think the average person understands that.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The Bush tax cuts of 2003 did increase tax revenue to historical levels. That's a historical fact.

And, again, I didn't like Bush and the neo-cons. But I'm objective enough to see they worked before starting another war, increasing the size of government and increasing spending.

KC_Hokie

No, it's no an historical fact, and you're making the simple mistake of attributing all growth post-Bush tax cuts (as the economy was coming out a recession) to the Bush tax cuts. It's a disputed conclusion, and there is academic research that suggests they have lowered revenue substantially.

But, what's more important is how taxes will affect revenue today. Historical evidence is not what's important here, econometric analysis is. And econometric analysis suggests that raising taxes today will, in fact, increase tax revenue.

Wow, did you even read my post? I just addressed exactly this point, but I guess I'll go further into detail if you insist.

You seem to be familiar with the Laffer curve. Now, in the past we've often been to the right of the optimal tax level (from a short-run revenue-maximizing perspective). This is why tax cuts under administrations like JFK and Reagan enjoyed rising tax revenue (controlling for other factors) when taxes were raised. Under Bush, mitigating factors (such as rising out of a recession) make it impossible to determine the effects of the tax cuts solely from eyeballing what happened to tax revenues. Thus, econometric analysis is needed, which (from what I've seen at least) generally suggests that they, in fact, lowered tax revenue.

Now, jump ahead to the present, we are at a substantially lower tax rate than under Reagan and other administrations, so simply pointing to those is uninformative. Rather, we need econometric analysis to estimate the effects of taxation on revenue. That is exactly what Trabandt and Uhlig (2009) do, and they find that we can, in fact, increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates. This is because we are no longer on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve, and presently the loss in revenue caused by declining economic growth resulting from higher taxes is more than offset by the gain in revenue from raising taxes.

That's my point, I hope you'll take a moment to actually read it instead of just spouting the same line over and over.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, it's no an historical fact, and you're making the simple mistake of attributing all growth post-Bush tax cuts (as the economy was coming out a recession) to the Bush tax cuts. It's a disputed conclusion, and there is academic research that suggests they have lowered revenue substantially.

But, what's more important is how taxes will affect revenue today. Historical evidence is not what's important here, econometric analysis is. And econometric analysis suggests that raising taxes today will, in fact, increase tax revenue.

chessmaster1989

Wow, did you even read my post? I just addressed exactly this point, but I guess I'll go further into detail if you insist.

You seem to be familiar with the Laffer curve. Now, in the past we've often been to the right of the optimal tax level (from a short-run revenue-maximizing perspective). This is why tax cuts under administrations like JFK and Reagan enjoyed rising tax revenue (controlling for other factors) when taxes were raised. Under Bush, mitigating factors (such as rising out of a recession) make it impossible to determine the effects of the tax cuts directly from examining what happened to tax revenues. Thus, econometric analysis is needed, which (from what I've seen at least) generally suggests that they, in fact, lowered tax revenue.

Now, jump ahead to the present, we are at a substantially lower tax rate than under Reagan and other administrations, so simply pointing to those is uninformative. Rather, we need econometric analysis to estimate the effects of taxation on revenue. That is exactly what Trabandt and Uhlig (2009) do, and they find that we can, in fact, increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates. This is because we are no longer on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve, and presently the loss in revenue caused by declining economic growth resulting from higher taxes is more than offset by the gain in revenue from raising taxes.

That's my point, I hope you'll take a moment to actually read it instead of just spouting the same line over and over.

There hasn't been a cut in 8 years so to say they aren't working or whatever doesn't make sense. And those cuts worked but then were squandered by neo-cons.

There hasn't been a corporate tax cut since the 1980s (which also worked by increasing tax revenue and GDP).

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If a small business makes over $250,000, which is a huge percentage of them, they get taxed the same as an individual making that same amount.

I don't think the average person understands that.

KC_Hokie

I work in a small business. Our business gets taxed on what money we have left over. We generally make sure that we don't have any money left over after bills and salaries are paid. All of us pay income tax on our earnings which are paid as salary - so we pay taxes on every dollar we make. No loopholes for us. :(

I say no because im gonna be super wealthy or im gonna work for the super wealthy and that means more money for me.

Small businesses pay invidiual tax rates while corporation pay....corporate tax rates.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Like I said earlier tax cuts worked several times in the last 100 years for both parties. Tax revenues increased. JFK knew this.

KC_Hokie

Wow, did you even read my post? I just addressed exactly this point, but I guess I'll go further into detail if you insist.

You seem to be familiar with the Laffer curve. Now, in the past we've often been to the right of the optimal tax level (from a short-run revenue-maximizing perspective). This is why tax cuts under administrations like JFK and Reagan enjoyed rising tax revenue (controlling for other factors) when taxes were raised. Under Bush, mitigating factors (such as rising out of a recession) make it impossible to determine the effects of the tax cuts directly from examining what happened to tax revenues. Thus, econometric analysis is needed, which (from what I've seen at least) generally suggests that they, in fact, lowered tax revenue.

Now, jump ahead to the present, we are at a substantially lower tax rate than under Reagan and other administrations, so simply pointing to those is uninformative. Rather, we need econometric analysis to estimate the effects of taxation on revenue. That is exactly what Trabandt and Uhlig (2009) do, and they find that we can, in fact, increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates. This is because we are no longer on the "wrong side" of the Laffer curve, and presently the loss in revenue caused by declining economic growth resulting from higher taxes is more than offset by the gain in revenue from raising taxes.

That's my point, I hope you'll take a moment to actually read it instead of just spouting the same line over and over.

There hasn't been a cut in 8 years so to say they aren't working or whatever doesn't make sense. And those cuts worked but then were squandered by neo-cons.

There hasn't been a corporate tax cut since the 1980s (which also worked by increasing tax revenue and GDP).

No, I've acknowledge the history of tax cuts many times, and I've specifically said that tax cuts have increased revenue in the past. Don't try to say otherwise.

You're ignoring econometric evidence that contradicts your viewpoint, in favor of historical evidence which has far less power in predicting what will happen today. You do understand the principles behind the Laffer curve, right?

Until I get filthy rich, you better believe it!

This topic needs more Joe the Plumber.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorKC_Hokie

Really?!

Then why is unemployment above 9%?We followed the ideology that wealth should be transferred from Americans to the rich to the point that the income gap is the highest it's been since right before the great depression and in 2008 the results almost sent us to a third depression. We have a President that has passed more tax cuts than any other President in the past quarter century giving us the lowest tax code since the 1950's. We have corporations making record profits but instead of trickling down into jobs, they're planning lay-offs.

Most of the jobs in this economy that the new congress is trying to kill, have not been created by the wealthy but instead by small businesses ran by what's left of the middle class. This is class warfare waged by the top 1% on everyone else. It's time everyone else fought back.

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]No because the wealthy are the ones who create jobs. Not the poorKC_Hokie