Taxes, Your “Fair Share”, and the Occupy Drones Who Can’t Think For Themselves

Posted on April 5, 2013. Filed under: Economy, Politics, Taxes | Tags: , , |

English: Plot of top bracket from U.S. Federal...

Top bracket from U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates for 1913 to 2009. Data are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I got into an argument with someone over on Facebook over taxes, and what my “fair share” for taxes should be as a business owner. We also sparred about Reagan’s influence on the economy, and instead of answering my question about what my fair share of taxes should be, he launched into a tirade to “educate” me about taxes and the economy.

I know. It was foolish on my part to get into an argument with someone over on Facebook.

I gave an example of going back to the 1960’s tax rates of 90% (for the sake of simplicity). If I made $500k, the Feds would get $450k of that, leaving me with $50k.  Then the State of Oregon (where I live) would get their pound of flesh at 9%, leaving me with $5k. That’s not even taking into account FICA, Medicare and gas taxes. In the end, I would owe the government more than I bring in.

His argument?

You’re 90% tax scenario is invalid because this isn’t the 1960’s, so perhaps you should try something a little more realistic.

Tax rates for the highest earners was over 90% in the 1960’s, so how much more realistic can I get? I have talked to many Democrats who believe that we should return to the upper tax bracket of 91%, just like in the 1960’s. So how unrealistic am I being? Of course, what they never tell you is that while tax rates were at 91%, the bottom tax tier was 20%, and only 501 returns out of 64 million filed in 1963 actually paid that high tax rate (the cutoff was $400k a year).

It isn’t the 1920’s either, but we pay the same tax rates.

In the end, he gave me a lengthy response, going on about the book Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, and ended up plagiarizing his entire argument from Forbes Magazine. When I called him on it, he suggested that I don’t write my blog “in my own words”. Interesting considering that he admits that he has never been here nor read any of my articles.

I try, to the best of my ability, to write in my own words. When I fail to do so, or feel that I can’t, I italicize or quote the source I am using. More often than not, I include links to my sources. He also accused me of using Fox News as a source, which I don’t do very often. I try to keep my sources varied.

Talking to this guy who’s only argument is a plagiarized article from Forbes is like clapping with one hand. He was trying to point out a book, which I sincerely doubt he read (because he plagiarized from Forbes to make himself sound smarter than he is). 

When confronted over the fact that he never answered my question, and that he changed the argument instead, he just ignored it and continued to go on with his tirade. From Forbes:

President Reagan‘s great economic recovery of the 1980s it is often attributed to the stimulative impact of major tax cuts aka E.R.T.A. In reality, the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared. So, in 1982 Reagan signed (TEFRA) the largest peacetime TAX INCREASE in our nation’s history. In his tenure Reagan signed 9 tax bills – 7 of which raised taxes! (hmm, Regan RAISED taxes???)

Here’s how it should properly read: “Reagan tried cutting taxes in 1981, his first year as President. When that didn’t work, he backed up and tried again. He didn’t whine about it like a little bitch, or complain about the mess Carter had left him, he tried again and succeeded the second time.”

Whenever tax cuts go into effect, their initial impact is to reduce revenue. However, as the tax base is expanded and more people start paying taxes (as they go back to work), revenue starts to increase. To say that the tax cuts were responsible for “massive” deficits is misleading. Yes, there were deficits. Reagan was a big believer in deficit spending. However, as revenue increased, much of these deficits were covered over time, leaving Reagan free to do more deficit spending.

(For the record, I was not wholeheartedly behind the deficit spending, but he left it up to his successor to get it under control)

As for his supposed tax increases, TEFRA opponents describe as the “largest tax increase in US history”. Just because someone writes it doesn’t make it true. The same holds true for this blog. Just because I say it doesn’t make it true, though I do my best. What TEFRA was was the cancellation of his previously scheduled tax breaks. The cancellation of tax breaks is not a tax increase any more than the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase by Bush.

Who is better at handling the economy? For me the jury is still out.  I haven’t read Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, and I probably won’t. But I know this, as I pointed out before, it is easy to lie with statistics and analysis. I pointed out just days before this guy did exactly what I said the left does where Reagan is concerned, is that they only focus on the tax cuts. They don’t seem to realize that there was more to it than that. I think that’s called revisionist history.

There is so much to take into consideration that never makes it into the conversation  because if it did, you would end up with a treatise the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The book covers Hoover to Bush II. Although it was published in late 2012, they conveniently leave out Obama’s first term, the massive spending, the credit downgrades, the tax increases and the high unemployment that just won’t go away.

Take into account that our current President has no experience as an executive. Hoover, elected in 1928, also had no executive or elected office experience. Take a look at the size of homes, how many cars, how many radios/stereos, televisions, computers, phones, etc. that are owned today compared to back then. Compare what we have today to the 1970’s and 80’s. We are much more prosperous today, we own more stuff, for good or ill, today than we ever had. Even those who are in poverty have a washing machine and dryer, microwave, in many cases, a dishwasher, a tv, a car, a stereo and a computer.

In the end, he never answered what he thinks my fair share should be. Never mind that the top 1% pays more of their share of Federal income taxes than the percentage of income that they earn.

It doesn’t matter to the left. Their fair share, my fair share, goes like this: Arm, leg, firstborn.

Until they get everything to give to others, they will never be satisfied. They won’t be happy until the resurrect the Soviet system and take from us all to distribute as they see fit: The insiders first with the biggest share, to the proletariat with the smallest share barely scraping by and thanking their masters for the scraps.

 

 

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,716 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: