Return to Eisenhower-Era PRO$PERITY?
Return to Eisenhower-Era TAX RATE$!!
Calumet City, Illinois asked?
99% are at much less than poverty.
Children go up through the grades without learning.
Schools only hope is the superior superintendent.
It sure as heck is not the teachers - failures.
Dailey and Rahm’s gentrification in Chicago - collateral damage.
Ridiculous, time to ban all Arctic drilling. Any person or group who buys these leases should eat the loss.
I’d like to see a statement from the new administration, telling the potential lease holders that the leases will be rescinded on Jan.20, 2021. But I dream big.
I think we are both one story off on our comments. :))
Only if they are replaced by even better deals for the buyers, because deregulation is one way in any area that covered by a trade deal.
What is it about certainty for corporations at the public’s expense that people don’t understand?
That means one way, everything that’s done stays done or gets worse, unless we buy our freedom back, at huge expense.
That’s the very core of US trade policy - So we can pur our investments into foreign countries.
They trade away US jobs to buy foreign acceptance of the corporatitization, extended patents, laws that limit fincial services regulation. (Banking/insurance) .
its literally the first line in a summery of Obama/Bidens TISA I read a few years ago (published by the EU, not the US) and now with services liberalization everything practically is covered by this kind of deal (The existing one is a hybrid deal, the US one just includes everything by default unless its excluded.)
This is a new world government where people don’t exist, except as markets that cannot be devalued, which are sold - All these thosands or maybe even millions of changes are 100% for corporations, They’re writing all these laws, in charge of most things of importance.
Wake up, we’re being tricked, lulled into sleep.
This is why we cant get anything fixed.
The “caps” on FICA taxes should be abolished so that Social Security payments can keep up with inflation; they have fallen WAY behind over the past three or four decades. Also, “our” Multi-NaZional Korporations are “people” now, and should therefor be paying their FICA Taxes (Medicare & Social Security contributions) just like the rest of us who have “people” privileges . . .
it’s hard for me not to favor raising taxes on incomes over $400K. But then I live in Canada and make about 60K Canadian per year. I suppose I hardly rate. Certainly not enough to (meekly) dare to venture an opinion on this issue. (Would you believe I’m subject to about 12K Canadian Inc. tax anyway?) Oh well, ya can’t say I’m not pulling my weight. I’m not a useless eater, I’m not, I’m not…
Glad you said that
I thought I was having an ‘episode’ of some sort
Went back to the article 3 times
Anyone here make $400,000 a year?
Taxation must be equal for the person earning $12,000/yr and one earning $5,000,000/yr for the population to believe in it’s government.
Yeah, I was reading the stories from the bottom of the page up, replied to ridgewalker1, then went to the oil lease story above this one, and realized our mistake.
Many Americans do not understand the graduated income tax. Saying raising taxes on incomes over $400K might be grammatically correct, but still confusing. Lots of people think that means that those who have a total income of $400K or more pay higher tax on the whole thing, not that the rate is higher on the amount over $400K.
When Eisenhower was Prez, the top tier tax rate was 91% (meaning the part of the income for those who made enough to reach this rate was taxed at 91%). Right now I think the top tier tax rate is 25% or 28%.
We need to raise the tax rates on the top tiers of income to a much higher percentage. Remember, it’s only on income above this limit.
All major countries have progressive personal income tax rates. That’s because, to raise the same tax revenue with a flat tax, would require low income earners (who spend all or most of their after-tax income in the economy) paying much more in tax than they do now, and would result in very high earners (who don’t spend much of their after-tax income in the economy) paying much less in taxes than they do now.
I imagine there might be someone posting here with a family income that high (it isn’t me, but I do pay plenty of taxes - this level is about 2% of all families in the US according to ~https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/).
Echo what @martman2 said. Where does a progressive get the idea a flat tax is a good one? Is it because you are thinking of the whole Warren Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary line? (This is a great argument to raise the capital gains tax to be the same as income tax, but not to get rid of progressive taxes).
Someday I’d like to understand how many people and how much money was actually subject to that 90% level. I’m guessing there were a lot of very smart tax lawyers and accountants that figured out how minimize the amount of income subject to those rates.
I’d be happy with a raise from the current cap of 37% into the 40s along with a big simplification of our tax code hell so that this 40+% is actually paid.
Thanks for the correction, meant 35% or 38%, but guess it is in between.
It actually was a big chunk of money.
Do you have a source with numbers? I read a Vox story (~https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/14/9736994/bernie-sanders-dwight-eisenhower-tax-rates) and one aspect which is kind of interesting is that this is only income tax, not capital gains taxes. So I’m sure many wealthy people got around paying anywhere near 90% of their income over 3.5 million (the start of the top bracket in today’s dollars) by making damn sure the money coming in did not come too much through the income pipe.
The Vox story also makes a point that when the income tax is that high it keeps wage inequity in check - I buy that at least for the income pipe. If a company has a certain amount of money to pay for salaries and they know that at the top levels, they are effectively paying the government 90% of that money, that is obviously going to effect the calculations.
An AP story (~https://apnews.com/article/2184e9f18f6f4acca1ed007bdcdca818) claimed the high rates enabled things like the interstate highway system. Interesting if true - I need numbers.