Tax Brackets since 1964

[Dr. Who]

The top tax rate on the 1% was 77% in 1964, it is now 33%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Policy_and_Economic_Inequality_in_the_United_S tates


Since 1964, the U.S. income tax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Income_tax) has become significantly less progressive. Other taxes such as capital gains (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Capital_gains), estate, and inheritance taxes (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Inheritance_taxes) have also become less progressive over the last several decades. Most of the reductions to these taxes, however, have occurred in the last twenty years. A tax code is considered progressive if the tax rate rises as the value of taxable wealth rises.[7] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-7) A progressive tax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Progressive_tax) code is believed to mitigate the effects of recessions by taking a smaller percentage of income from lower-income consumers than from other consumers in the economy so they can spend more of their disposable income (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Disposable_income) on consumption (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Consumption_(economics)) and thus restore equilibrium.[8] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-autogenerated1987-8) This is known as an automatic stabilizer as it does not need Congressional action such as legislation. It also mitigates inflation by taking more money from the wealthiest consumers so their large level of consumption doesn't create demand-driven inflation.[8] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-autogenerated1987-8) The Revenue Act of 1964 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964) was the first bill of the Post-World War II (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/World_War_II) era to reduce marginal income tax rates. This reform, which was proposed under John F. Kennedy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/John_F._Kennedy) but passed under Lyndon Johnson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson), reduced the top marginal income (annual income of $2.9 million+ adjusted for inflation) tax rate from 91% to 70% for annual incomes of $1.4 million+. It was the first tax legislation to reduce the top end of the marginal income tax rate distribution since 1924.[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-taxfoundation1-1)[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-taxfoundation1-1) The top marginal income tax rate had been 91% since 1946 and hadn’t been below 70% since 1936.[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-taxfoundation1-1) The “Bush Tax Cuts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bush_Tax_Cuts),” which are the popularly known names of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2 003) passed during President George W. Bush (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/George_W._Bush)’s first term, reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 38.6%[9] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-natptax1-9) (annual income at $382,967+ adjusted for inflation) to 35%.[9] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-natptax1-9) These rates were continued under the Obama Administration and will extend through 2013. The number of income tax brackets declined during this time period as well but several years, particularly after 1992, saw an increase in the number of income tax brackets. In 1964, there were 26 income tax brackets. The number of brackets was reduced to 16 by 1981 and then collapsed into 13 brackets after passage of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981). Five years later, the 13 income tax brackets were collapsed into five under the Reagan Administration. By the end of the Bush 41 Administration in 1992, the number of income tax brackets had reached an all-time low of three but President Bill Clinton (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton) oversaw a reconfiguration of the brackets that increased the number to five in 1993. The current number of income tax brackets, as of 2011, is six which is the number of brackets configured under President George W. Bush

[KC]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945–2015.jpg

http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/atlantic-1.png

[Peter1469]

Marginal tax rates have zero relationship to adjusted gross income and actual tax paid.

[KC]

Marginal tax rates have zero relationship to adjusted gross income and actual tax paid.


And they have even less of an effect on the total amount of GDP that is collected in taxes.

[zelmo1234]

Hear is a great article that explains just what and how it happened. If you give me the deductions and shelters of 1964 I would go beck to those tax rates in a heart beat, as I would pay a fraction of what I pay now!

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

If you look at what the rich are paying it is very easy to see that we are going to be stuck in slow and non existant growth for a long time!

Kenedy knew it? And like conservatives try and tell our progressive friends, tax increases hurt the poor and the middle class, but it seems to be compassionate to raise taxes on the rich, even though the lower middle class and poor take the hit.

Like I have always said, progressives judge themselves on the intended compassion, not the actual results.

So here are a few question for our more progressive friends.

#1 with the job security and great retirement and benifits of a public sector job? why do you think that it is that the public sector makes much more than your average private sector worker now? and being that the private sector took about a 5K per year hit because of this recession, and taxes have risen nearly 8% on the rich if you add in Obamacare. what is the percentage that you feel the public sector workers shoudl take in wage and benifit consessions to help balance the budget?

#2 What is the fair tax rate that you feel those that make 1 million dollars or more should pay of their income. and remember that they are paying on average about 5% in state and 2% in locare and property taxes already?

#3 do you feel that it is fair that nearly 50% of americans receiveing income do not pay any form of federal income tax at all. Or do you feel that they do not actually use the roads, need protection by the military and police. benifit from enviromental clean up, receive pell grants, and educational funds, send their kids to school ect?

#4 If we are scaling back the wars, and we now have more people going back to work, and we did not have people starving to death in 2008 when the took a huge dump! why is it that we need to spend nearly 25% more today in government than we did in 2008 and what would be wrong with cutting spending back to those levels. after all there will be savings in spending on the wars, and on Unemployment, so their would be more for spending in other areas?

#5 A look into history shows that cutting the tax rates has increased revenue, not decreased revenue! The only possible explanation that we have that progressives could possible make is that the wealthy would have made the same investments reguardless of tax rates. We can see that with the experation of the GWB cuts, our economy has already began to slow down. just look at the growth rate of the last 2 quarters and that is just the threat of an increase. While when tax rates go up, even in the Clinton years it slowed economic growth. thus the 1997 tax cuts of Bill Clinton! If this is true and has a pattern that is very easy to follow. Please justify increasing taxes, in any other way than feel good policy designed to pit the poor against the rich?

Thank you for you answers in advance?

[Mainecoons]

#6 How do you explain and justify the fact that under Barack Obama, the share of income growth going to the rich has increased to over 90 percent while prices on the things that working people need, like gasoline and electricity and many foods, have skyrocketed? How do you explain and justify how Obama's policies have made it impossible for small savers to earn anything on their savings?

[Ivan88]

#6 How do you explain and justify the fact that..., the share of income growth going to the rich has increased to over 90 percent while prices on the things that working people need, like gasoline and electricity and many foods, have skyrocketed? How do you explain and justify how current policies have made it impossible for small savers to earn anything on their savings? current replacement addition to Mainecoons' statement.

Here are some reasons:
Our wars have raised the cost of petroleum, which raises the cost of production of most everything.
Mountains of regulations that harass, obstruct, delay, hinder, and block producers from producing.
Increased taxes & fees from all levels of government.
Interest burdens on debt that should have been interest free.
Trillions stolen by the war profiteers and other government supported racketeers.

When the bullycrats get the hell out of the way, the American People can get back to producing wealth.

If the government were not so busy giving welfare to the super-rich, and imposing burdens on everyone else, we could over come some, more, or all the garbage littering our lives.

If the government were really helping the American people, we wouldn't need much welfare.

But none of these 'ifs' is going to happen until enough Americans confess our national and individual sins, repent and humbly accept the punishments of our inequity.

For the Curses of the Law of "nature's God" require that those who hate you shall rule over you. (Leviticus 26:17)

[Dr. Who]

Marginal tax rates have zero relationship to adjusted gross income and actual tax paid.
It is fairly significant if you make more than $388,350/annum.

For a single individual:
•10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700
•15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350
•25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650
•28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650
•33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350
•35% on taxable income over $388,350.

For a married couple filing jointly:
•10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400
•15% on taxable income over $17,400 to $70,700
•25% on taxable income over $70,700 to $142,700
•28% on taxable income over $142,700 to $217,450
•33% on taxable income over $217,450 to $388,350
•35% on taxable income over $388,350. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49521672/What_Is_the_Marginal_Tax_Rate


For Zelmo:


The United States' corporate tax rate was at its highest, 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969. The top rate was hiked for the last time in 1993 to its current rate of 35 percent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States

[Peter1469]

It is fairly significant if you make more than $388,350/annum.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49521672/What_Is_the_Marginal_Tax_Rate


For Zelmo:

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States

[/INDENT]

You are not citing to people who make more that $388,350 per year. You are citing to people who have an adjusted gross income of $388,350 per year.

[Dr. Who]

In the past 40 years or so, CEOs have gone from earning 20 times more than the average worker, to more than 230 times the average worker. (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/) Over the same period of time, unions have weakened to the point that successful companies feel comfortable asking for unprecedented concessions from workers at the same time the company is reaping record profits. What do these things have to do with each other? Everything. http://gawker.com/5928298/its-time-to-tie-executive-pay-to-worker-pay

Now clearly this is a union biased website, however it does provide some insight as to why the rank and file in the US are becoming poorer. If the compensation for the average corporate executives is rising disproportionately to the average workers, then I would suggest this is part of the reason why there is always a need for austerity measures in corporations that includes making the average workers accomplish the same thing with fewer people and work for less money. (shareholders must receive their dividends and that has to come from somewhere) As a result the average worker in the US is over time, becoming poorer with less disposable income to contribute to the economy. As they have less disposable income they want cheaper goods, hence favoring cheap foreign imports over goods made in the US. US manufacturers feel that they are at a disadvantage, paying higher taxes and higher payroll than manufacturers in 3rd world nations, so they flee to foreign soils. You could reduce or eliminate the corporate tax rate, but unless it puts corporations in the same position that operating in a third world nation provides, they will still stay away.

I should also note that this phenomenon of executives feeding at the corporate trough is not mirrored in many European nations, where executive compensation is far more conservative, and the wages of average workers has not been declining. I would also note that executive compensation in the US is not necessarily tied to company performance - it appears ridiculous executive bonuses are paid even when companies are performing poorly.

[bladimz]

#3 do you feel that it is fair that nearly 50% of americans receiveing income do not pay any form of federal income tax at all. Or do you feel that they do not actually use the roads, need protection by the military and police. benifit from enviromental clean up, receive pell grants, and educational funds, send their kids to school ect?I believe that it's extremely foolish to expect those who are living at or below the poverty level to contribute financially to the federal government. You and others almost always insinuate that these people are cheating America, as if it's their master plan. "I know... we'll just take some crappy minimum wage jobs and struggle along so we don't have to pay Income Tax. This is gonna be great!"

Would you be interested in being the one to go from door to door raging that "Barack wants his money!!"

The guy with a whole loaf of bread can spare a slice or two (although he's supposed to give three). The guy with a few crumbs has it hard enough paying local and state taxes. I do feel that they do actually use the roads, need protection by the military and police, benifit from enviromental clean up, receive pell grants, and educational funds, send their kids to school, ect. Would you refuse them those protections, opportunities and privileges because they're poor?

[Dr. Who]

You are not citing to people who make more that $388,350 per year. You are citing to people who have an adjusted gross income of $388,350 per year.
If it is not significant, why all the anxiety over the Fiscal Cliff?

[Dr. Who]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945–2015.jpg

http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/atlantic-1.png

Perhaps because the wealthy have so many tax loopholes that they generally pay very few taxes - the tax burden is on the middle class.

[Peter1469]

If it is not significant, why all the anxiety over the Fiscal Cliff?


I am not sure what fiscal cliff you are referring to. The sequestration bill certainly is not. It doesn't cut a thing.

[Tyreal Jenkins]

I believe that it's extremely foolish to expect those who are living at or below the poverty level to contribute financially to the federal government. You and others almost always insinuate that these people are cheating America, as if it's their master plan. "I know... we'll just take some crappy minimum wage jobs and struggle along so we don't have to pay Income Tax. This is gonna be great!"

Would you be interested in being the one to go from door to door raging that "Barack wants his money!!"

The guy with a whole loaf of bread can spare a slice or two (although he's supposed to give three). The guy with a few crumbs has it hard enough paying local and state taxes. I do feel that they do actually use the roads, need protection by the military and police, benifit from enviromental clean up, receive pell grants, and educational funds, send their kids to school, ect. Would you refuse them those protections, opportunities and privileges because they're poor?

Yes they would because Republicans are selfish it's all about me and if republicans had their way they would let people die they don't care.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps because the wealthy have so many tax loopholes that they generally pay very few taxes - the tax burden is on the middle class.

That is not a reasonable statement. Romney paid more taxes in 2012 that you will pay in your entire life.

[Dr. Who]

I am not sure what fiscal cliff you are referring to. The sequestration bill certainly is not. It doesn't cut a thing.


The previously enacted laws leading to the fiscal cliff had been projected to result in a 19.63% increase in revenue and 0.25% reduction in spending from fiscal years 2012 to 2013. Those laws included the expiration of the 2010 Tax Relief Act (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/2010_Tax_Relief_Act) and planned spending cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011). The former extended the Bush tax cuts (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts) for two years, while the latter was enacted as a compromise to resolve a dispute concerning the public debt ceiling (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Debt_ceiling) and address the failure of the 111th Congress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress) to pass a federal budget. Under the fiscal-cliff scenario, some major programs like Social Security (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)), Medicaid (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Medicaid), federal pay (including military pay and pensions) and veterans' benefits would have been exempted from the spending cuts. Discretionary spending for federal agencies and cabinet departments would have been reduced through broad cuts referred to as budget sequestration (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Budget_sequestration).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
I think the idea was to maintain the status quo.

[Dr. Who]

That is not a reasonable statement. Romney paid more taxes in 2012 that you will pay in your entire life.
Maybe so, however his net worth is in question:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-05/opinions/35500772_1_private-equity-private-equity-firms-mitt-romney

Is he a really poor businessman or is there some missing money?

[Peter1469]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
I think the idea was to maintain the status quo.

Of course. But they sell it to the people as a cut. There are no cuts.

[Peter1469]

Maybe so, however his net worth is in question:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-05/opinions/35500772_1_private-equity-private-equity-firms-mitt-romney

Is he a really poor businessman or is there some missing money?

Off topic. He has paid more in taxes in one year than you and me will pay together in our entire lives.

Yet some people demand more.

[Dr. Who]

Off topic. He has paid more in taxes in one year than you and me will pay together in our entire lives.

Yet some people demand more.
Well he should have paid more, since he made more than you or I would make together in our lifetimes. The question is whether he paid enough relative to what he made? Not saying he didn't but many wealthy people find a huge array of loopholes and tax shelters.

[Dr. Who]

Of course. But they sell it to the people as a cut. There are no cuts.
Spin doctors are ubiquitous in politics.

[Peter1469]

Well he should have paid more, since he made more than you or I would make together in our lifetimes. The question is whether he paid enough relative to what he made? Not saying he didn't but many wealthy people find a huge array of loopholes and tax shelters.

The rich already pay the majority of taxes: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

[zelmo1234]

It is fairly significant if you make more than $388,350/annum.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49521672/What_Is_the_Marginal_Tax_Rate


For Zelmo:

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States

[/INDENT]

Yes and then you add property, state and local taxes. and you are over 50% of a person income? Is that fair in your opnion?

And then you add the wonderful 3.8% for Obamacare. tell me just why I should make more than about 150K in the USA?

Would I not be better off investing in places that do nto require more than half of my income?

[Dr. Who]

The rich already pay the majority of taxes: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Gee, I would refer you to figure 2 of your link. It shows that the top 1% pays far less as a percentage of income than the most impoverished people in society - 1.6% vs 8.8% respectively.

[zelmo1234]

I believe that it's extremely foolish to expect those who are living at or below the poverty level to contribute financially to the federal government. You and others almost always insinuate that these people are cheating America, as if it's their master plan. "I know... we'll just take some crappy minimum wage jobs and struggle along so we don't have to pay Income Tax. This is gonna be great!"

Would you be interested in being the one to go from door to door raging that "Barack wants his money!!"

The guy with a whole loaf of bread can spare a slice or two (although he's supposed to give three). The guy with a few crumbs has it hard enough paying local and state taxes. I do feel that they do actually use the roads, need protection by the military and police, benifit from enviromental clean up, receive pell grants, and educational funds, send their kids to school, ect. Would you refuse them those protections, opportunities and privileges because they're poor?

My point was that the current taxation and regulation policies are exactly what is making it so they can not afford to contribute.

lets say that I have a loaf of 10 slices of bread. withthe current taxation and regulations, including the new 3.8% preminum that I have to pay to obamacare you are not requireing 3 slices of bread, but when you add in state and local taxes, you are requiring 5.5 slices of bread.

Wouldn't I be better off moving my bread factory to where they only require the three slices of bread.

If the average income in america is about 47K and you have about half of the people not paying taxes. You have a lot of people that are above the poverty level not paying taxes.

What you have now is no incentive to invest in this country. companies are still making great profits so the market is going up. but theyare not making it here in the USA

[zelmo1234]

[QUOTE=Dr. Who;245864]Perhaps because the wealthy have so many tax loopholes that they generally pay very few taxes - the tax burden is on the middle class.[/QUOT

So the middle class has the tax burden?????????????????????/

then why does the top 10% pay 71% of the federal income tax. Is the middle class the top 10% now?

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

The reason that your revenue chart has stayed the same is because you now have nearly half of the people not paying taxes at all!

So tell me just how is it that the middle class are bearing the tax burden???

[zelmo1234]

Yes they would because Republicans are selfish it's all about me and if republicans had their way they would let people die they don't care.

No tyreal, if republicans had there way they would get to keep enough money to employ people with good jobs, so they do not ahve to remain in the poverty of the government programs! Stop the class warefare BS and actually learn what causes people to get ahead. It is not the welfare system

[zelmo1234]

Gee, I would refer you to figure 2 of your link. It shows that the top 1% pays far less as a percentage of income than the most impoverished people in society - 1.6% vs 8.8% respectively.

The working poor pay 6% of their income in FICA taxes. the rich man that they work for pay the same 6% to the federal govenment. but it is not considered a tax, it is a business cost. Did you bother to think of that?

Tell me Who what is a fair percentage to take from the rich and then tell me why any person in their right mind would want to invest in that system?

[Dr. Who]

Yes and then you add property, state and local taxes. and you are over 50% of a person income? Is that fair in your opnion?

And then you add the wonderful 3.8% for Obamacare. tell me just why I should make more than about 150K in the USA?

Would I not be better off investing in places that do nto require more than half of my income?
Zelmo, I'm not actually referring to people making less than $1M per annum. My problem is with the multi-millionaires who hire high profile tax accountants to hide their income. I'm not even talking about business, but personal income that is being hidden, sheltered and deposited in off-shore banks. It is money that is being horded and not spent in the US economy. The more that personal wealth on that level is protected, the less money is circulated in the economy. As the gap grows between the halves and have-nots, the less money there will be to be spent on consumer purchases. Most businesses rely on the average consumer for their success. What happens when the bulk of the money in society is being stashed away by the wealthy? No matter how lavish their spending, they don't come close to the daily purchases of the public.

[Dr. Who]

The working poor pay 6% of their income in FICA taxes. the rich man that they work for pay the same 6% to the federal govenment. but it is not considered a tax, it is a business cost. Did you bother to think of that?

Tell me Who what is a fair percentage to take from the rich and then tell me why any person in their right mind would want to invest in that system?
If the tax rate for wealthy individuals is 33%, then they should pay all 33% of it. No shelters or loopholes and major problems if it is being diverted to offshore banks and not declared.

[KC]

If the tax rate for wealthy individuals is 33%, then they should pay all 33% of it. No shelters or loopholes and major problems if it is being diverted to offshore banks and not declared.

That much we can agree on. I think that tax rates on all individuals should be lowered, but I don't particularly care for all of the loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc. Washington would be wise to simplify the tax code so anyone could easily understand it.

[Dr. Who]

That much we can agree on. I think that tax rates on all individuals should be lowered, but I don't particularly care for all of the loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc. Washington would be wise to simplify the tax code so anyone could easily understand it.
It is neccessarily complicated to benefit those who can afford accountants.

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo, I'm not actually referring to people making less than $1M per annum. My problem is with the multi-millionaires who hire high profile tax accountants to hide their income. I'm not even talking about business, but personal income that is being hidden, sheltered and deposited in off-shore banks. It is money that is being horded and not spent in the US economy. The more that personal wealth on that level is protected, the less money is circulated in the economy. As the gap grows between the halves and have-nots, the less money there will be to be spent on consumer purchases. Most businesses rely on the average consumer for their success. What happens when the bulk of the money in society is being stashed away by the wealthy? No matter how lavish their spending, they don't come close to the daily purchases of the public.


What you are refering to is money that was made over seas. the people pay taxes on it and then the government wants an additional 35% to bring it back into the USA? So they continue to invest it over seas. I know I have a very sizable amount that I will never bring back into the country under current tax policies. so youhave business and investors keep money over seas because the tax policy sucks.

You can't keep taking and expect people to invest in this country!

[zelmo1234]

If the tax rate for wealthy individuals is 33%, then they should pay all 33% of it. No shelters or loopholes and major problems if it is being diverted to offshore banks and not declared.

not really sure how they are diverting profits made in the USA to off shore banks, that is actually illegal.

But they are keeping piles of money invested over seas off shore because they do not want to loose 35% of it!

[Dr. Who]

What you are refering to is money that was made over seas. the people pay taxes on it and then the government wants an additional 35% to bring it back into the USA? So they continue to invest it over seas. I know I have a very sizable amount that I will never bring back into the country under current tax policies. so youhave business and investors keep money over seas because the tax policy sucks.

You can't keep taking and expect people to invest in this country!
Not all capital is generated overseas. Much is, but I am referring to the money that the principals take home as their own income and it matters little whether it was generated overseas or domestically. If that income is being hidden, through tax loop holes and tax shelters, it is not contributing to the economy. Irrespective of how much the government prints money, it is still finite. The more the wealth of the few is stockpiled in tax exempt loopholes and sheltered, the less it circulates. Circulation of money is the key to economic success in this paradigm.

[zelmo1234]

Not all capital is generated overseas. Much is, but I am referring to the money that the principals take home as their own income and it matters little whether it was generated overseas or domestically. If that income is being hidden, through tax loop holes and tax shelters, it is not contributing to the economy. Irrespective of how much the government prints money, it is still finite. The more the wealth of the few is stockpiled in tax exempt loopholes and sheltered, the less it circulates. Circulation of money is the key to economic success in this paradigm.

So why do you think that they shelter in in these investments? Why would they not want to invest in new industries?

Could it be that the freaking taxes and regulations make it not worth the rick of investing???? YEAH that's it!

If you want to see why business is not investing look to washington and their policies

[zelmo1234]

Well he should have paid more, since he made more than you or I would make together in our lifetimes. The question is whether he paid enough relative to what he made? Not saying he didn't but many wealthy people find a huge array of loopholes and tax shelters.

So what is the proper amount that he should have paid! And are you willing to make all of the retired people pay thos same rates on their investments?

I wonder why, or should I say what did Romney do to keep you from being rich!

[Dr. Who]

So why do you think that they shelter in in these investments? Why would they not want to invest in new industries?

Could it be that the freaking taxes and regulations make it not worth the rick of investing???? YEAH that's it!

If you want to see why business is not investing look to washington and their policies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/03/ernst-young-pays-us-regulators

[Mainecoons]

What is your point?

[zelmo1234]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/03/ernst-young-pays-us-regulators

Did you notice that the UK company is the one paying the fins and being prosicuted? Did you also notice that it mentions nothing about the investors that theught they were investing legally.

And of course this proves my point, they invested over seas to avoid the current taxation and regulations!

Now you had a crooked company, and they are paying for it, I happen to think that is great.

Now maybe you can take a shot at my question Why would a person invest in this country when their taxation could be as high as 53%

[zelmo1234]

MY BEST INVESTMENT OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

It happened today at a local party store. a young mother in front of me was putting things back and reducing the cost so her card would go through. one of the things was a little rubber duck that her daughter (4 yrs) i am guessing. she was only putting $5.00 of gas in her car.

So as she was leaving, I purchased the items that she took of the bill and paid for $50.00 in gas,

NOW THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. The littel girl came over and gave me a big hug!!!!! and said thank you! Now if I could get that kind of return on all my other investments, life would be great!