A fix for social security.

pineinthegrass wrote: For even higher income people in the 33% and 35% brackets I already know you support Obama's plan to take away the Bush tax cuts so that moves them to 36% and 39.6%.

Why, yes.... I do...

pineinthegrass wrote: And the health care act adds another 0.9% to that, plus another 3.8% tax on investment income. I'll assume half their income is from investments, so that comes to a 0.9 + 1.6 = 2.5% increase to those brackets moving them to 38.5% and 42.1%.

Not unreasonable for 1%'ers.... They were paying a LOT more under previous presidents... (up to 90%)... And for the last 30 years we know they've made out like bandits... (No, really!...BANDITS...)

pineinthegrass wrote: And now on top of that you want to add another 6.2% or 12.4%. The current 33% bracket now goes up to 44.7% or 50.9%. That's an increase of 35% or 54%. Are you serious?

Why, yes.... I am.... Particularly, since we both know that regardless of what the table-rate is, the ACTUAL rate they will pay after all their deductions, loopholes and discounts will not come close to that.

(Remind me again what the corporate rate is...? 35% was it?.... And G.E. paid how much?...Oh, that's right... ZERO...)

And it wouldn't just push it out a couple of decades...The numbers I've seen show that it makes it stable virtually permanently...or at least for the next 100 years or so...

LadyJazzer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: For even higher income people in the 33% and 35% brackets I already know you support Obama's plan to take away the Bush tax cuts so that moves them to 36% and 39.6%.

Why, yes.... I do...

pineinthegrass wrote: And the health care act adds another 0.9% to that, plus another 3.8% tax on investment income. I'll assume half their income is from investments, so that comes to a 0.9 + 1.6 = 2.5% increase to those brackets moving them to 38.5% and 42.1%.

Not unreasonable for 1%'ers.... They were paying a LOT more under previous presidents... (up to 90%)... And for the last 30 years we know they've made out like bandits... (No, really!...BANDITS...)

pineinthegrass wrote: And now on top of that you want to add another 6.2% or 12.4%. The current 33% bracket now goes up to 44.7% or 50.9%. That's an increase of 35% or 54%. Are you serious?

Why, yes.... I am.... Particularly, since we both know that regardless of what the table-rate is, the ACTUAL rate they will pay after all their deductions, loopholes and discounts will not come close to that.

(Remind me again what the corporate rate is...? 35% was it?.... And G.E. paid how much?...Oh, that's right... ZERO...)

And it wouldn't just push it out a couple of decades...The numbers I've seen show that it makes it stable virtually permanently...or at least for the next 100 years or so...

As I mentioned, back when they had those very high tax brackets, people were not really paying that because they had a lot more tax loopholes back then.

I can't find data going back to the 90% days, but in 1981 the top rate was lowered from 70% to 50%. In 1987 it was lowered to 38.5% and in 1988 down to 28%. During that time, the actual effective tax paid by the top 10% and the top 1% only lowered by a couple of percent. Back in the 70's and 80's they had loopholes like limited partnerships which were eliminated. And under Clinton where the top rate went back up to 39.6%, both the top 10% and 1% paid about the same effective tax as when the top rate was 70%. So when you talk about those old 70% and 90% rates, you are comparing apples to oranges.

I don't know why you brought up corporate tax and GE since it doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion.

And again, is raising taxes the only idea you have? How much more are you going to raise them to fix Medicare?

And I've never heard of a 100 yr projection, maybe 70 yrs. Regardless, they are a joke. Those projections never end up happening.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

It appears that you contradict yourself in the same comment.

LadyJazzer wrote:
Not unreasonable for 1%'ers.... They were paying a LOT more under previous presidents... (up to 90%)... And for the last 30 years we know they've made out like bandits... (No, really!...BANDITS...)

LadyJazzer wrote: Why, yes.... I am.... Particularly, since we both know that regardless of what the table-rate is, the ACTUAL rate they will pay after all their deductions, loopholes and discounts will not come close to that.

Remind me again... were they paying 90% or did what they actually pay not even come close to that? You can't have it both ways. You're throwing around talking point figures that really can't be used in the same paragraph. That's the problem with dubious statements, it's hard to juggle them and remember where you used them before they jump up and bite you.

I can only point out the obvious comparisons...that "tax-rate" does NOT equal "effective tax-rate"... Sorry, I can't connect the dots for you...You have to do that yourself.

I see many jokes--(mostly in the Republican party)... But none in the numbers that show that a relatively small tax-increase on those making over $107,000/year would shore up the system for a century or more...