jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (24 posts)

TAXE$ AND MORE TAXE$ IN AMERICA

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13221902.jpg
    Do you feel that you are taxed too much?   Are you for less taxes?  Do you also feel that the government use taxes as a subterfuge for their oftentimes wasteful spending?

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      The top rate used to be 91%. Now the top rate is 39%.

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statisti … -tax-rates

      If you want lower taxes, cut defense spending, which is the largest discretionary budget expense.

      The U.S. defense budget is 3X larger than the next largest in the world (China) and is 36% of total worldwide defense spending.

      Ironically, fake "conservatives" want to spend more on defense while cutting taxes, which increases our national debt even more. Go figure.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        … so you don't think there are bad guys who want to annihilate us, tyrannize over us, take our land and/or enslave our people at the drop of a hat if we happen to appear or be defenseless?

        … Defending the nation is the main and true job of the president. Why bother with presidents, then?

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I said no such thing.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            … looks to me like we are still paying for World War II, as the article above says. Maybe we COULD afford to lower taxes all together, since we are not at war …

            OR ARE WE?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I don't understand your question.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, the info is accurate, according to Wikipedia. I provided the Wikipedia explanation.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      If you look at how much we are taxed as compared to how much we spend taxes are way to low. I would love lower taxes but it is not a responsible behavior considering the rate we spend. I would not say the government is committing subterfuge as much as non responsible and reckless spending based on what the people can pay.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    History of top rates, (In America)

    "Historical federal marginal tax rates for income for the lowest and highest income earners in the US.
    In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 (equivalent to $12.1 million in 2016 dollars) and a total of $28.3 million was collected.

    During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 (equivalent to $18.7 million in 2016 dollars).

    Under Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, top tax rates were reduced in 1921, 1924, 1926, and 1928. Mellon argued that lower rates would spur economic growth. By 1928, the top rate was scaled down to 24% along with the income threshold for paying this rate lowered to $100,000 (equivalent to $1.39 million in 2016 dollars).

    During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 (equivalent to $86.1 million in 2016 dollars).

    During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000 (equivalent to $2.72 million in 2016 dollars).

    The highest marginal tax rate for individuals for U.S. federal income tax purposes for tax years 1952 and 1953 was 92%.

    From 1964-2013, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000 (unadjusted for inflation). The one exception is the period from 1982 to 1992 when the topmost income tax brackets were removed. From 1981 until 1986 the top marginal rate was lowered to 50% on $86,000 and up (equivalent to $227 thousand in 2016 dollars). From 1988 to 1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 (equivalent to $60.2 thousand in 2016 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.

    Top tax rates were increased in 1992 and 1994, culminating in a 39.6% top individual rate applicable to all classes of income.

    Top individual tax rates were lowered in 2004 to 35% and tax rates on dividends and capital gains lowered to 15%, with the Bush administration claiming lower rates would spur economic growth.
    Based on the summary of federal tax income data in 2009, with a tax rate of 35%, the highest earning 1% of people paid 36.7% of the United States' income tax revenue.

    In 2012, President Obama announced plans to raise the two top tax rates from 35% to 39.6% and from 33% to 36%."

    FROM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ta … ted_States

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Change "income" (as in (94% applied to income above 200,000) and the statements become true.  They also become nearly meaningless as taxable income is a far, far cry from income and varies year to year and person to person regardless of actual income.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    FDR had to collect more taxes for the second World War."
    In March 1941, Roosevelt, with Congressional approval, provided Lend-Lease aid to Britain and China. Following the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which he famously called "a date which will live in infamy", Roosevelt sought and obtained the quick approval on the following day for Congress to declare war on Japan and, a few days later, on Germany. Assisted by his top aide Harry Hopkins, and with very strong national support, he worked closely with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in leading the Allies against Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy in World War II. He supervised the mobilization of the U.S. economy to support the war effort, and also ordered the internment of 100,000 Japanese American civilians. As an active military leader, Roosevelt implemented a war strategy on two fronts that ended in the defeat of the Axis Powers, and he initiated the development of the world's first atomic bomb. His work also influenced the later creation of the United Nations and Bretton Woods. Roosevelt's physical health seriously declined during the war years, and he died 11 weeks into his fourth term. He was then succeeded by his vice president Harry S. Truman, and a few months after Truman's inauguration, the United States bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to Japan's surrender."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    "The Price of Civilization, a publication of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, is a broad-ranging study of U.S. federal taxation between 1932 and 1945. In particular, the project seeks to illuminate the development of mass-based personal income taxation, uncovering the ideas, interests, and imperatives that moved the income tax to the center of federal finance. World War II and its dramatic revenue needs tell much of the story, but the war does not explain why various alternatives -- including a general sales tax -- were considered but ultimately rejected. In an effort to recapture the contingency of the policy process, the Price of Civilization hopes to shed light on what might have been but wasn't.

    The Price of Civilization includes both documentary and analytical components. Culling material from the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and various presidential libraries, the Project compiles and republishes key policy studies on federal taxation. The Project also seeks to collect and preserve interviews with key federal tax officials."

    FROM http://taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/W … enDocument

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    "Tax Day–which is April 18 this year, not April 15–is one occasion in which history offers little consolation. As you tally up your withholding and deductions, it may not help to know that you're also paying into a system created to fund World War II.
    When the modern income tax was introduced in 1913, it was constructed as a tax merely on the very top earners and was essentially irrelevant to most Americans.

    That changed in 1942, shortly after Pearl Harbor. The entire nation was mobilizing for war, and money was desperately needed. At the time, the idea of running a deficit was seen as disastrous, says Joseph J. Thorndike, author of Their Fair Share: Taxing the Rich in the Age of FDR and director of the Tax History Project.

    To pay for the war, Congress passed a new Revenue Act that nearly doubled the number of Americans who would have to pay income taxes. TIME called it "the biggest piece of machinery ever designed to separate dollars from citizens."

    Though the amount raised was important in the short run, it was the expansion in the number of people paying that fundamentally altered U.S. tax structure. The middle class had pitched in before—paying a tax on a purchase was seen as totally normal—but most people had never written a check to Uncle Sam. Now that link would be set in stone."

    FROM http://time.com/4289687/1942-tax-day-history/

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    No wonder we're always at war.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    Lower taxes by stopping, ending and eradicating WAR (and wars!)

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    Also, to lower taxes,
    which of the following would you choose?
    A. Stop caring about babies women can't afford.
    B. Stop allowing the govt. to help the poor.
    C. Stop helping those who are sick and injured.
    D. Stop trying to protect the environment.
    E. Stop attempting to control eduction, nation-wide.


    I suppose I would only pick E. (Who would DARE pick any of the others?)

    Of course, there are other ways to reduce taxes … what would they be?
    Stop providing national funding for roads, bridges and parks, etc.

    Where do we start?

    How about we be very careful in NOT voting for MORE reasons to TAX the Citizens!
    (such as an extra Soda pop tax roll)

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      You might start with B).  Instead, let's help the needy - we can do that for half the cost.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        yikes what and leave it to CHANCE? You uncivilized so and so!

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    <Do you also feel that the government use taxes as a subterfuge for their oftentimes wasteful spending?>

    Social security $$$$ was supposed to be saved. But it wasn't. Now less people are working/contributing. Oops

    Due to the beauacracy and the service programs behind the welfare system, the needy only receive 25 cents to each dollar received.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      But SS was saved!  We have promissory notes showing it!  And we even get interest on our savings, albeit the lowest possible interest that could be found.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        My suggestion: CUT WELFARE 80-90%, CREATE WORK PROGRAMS for those on welfare so they can work, & DISMANTLE THIS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! There, I SAID IT!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Can't cut it 90% - more than that are elderly, children and (truly) disabled.  But it can certainly be cut and some money recouped via work.

          But you won't dismantle universal health care - too many millions of people have been convinced that the universe owes them free health care.  Because they exist.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    at the risk of being called an uncivilized so and so as well, I would (actually) pick A, B, C and E
    Oh, I feel horrible! :-(

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    D! I pick D! Protect the environment at all costs!!!! Does this redeem me?

 
working