# Hahahahaha. Tea party republicans push for regressive tax hike. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525 "2011-08-21T14:08:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/81 "2011-08-24T13:08:54Z")
> [@Rekd](#): > > Here’s a hint: The people paying for the free shit can’t afford to keep paying for their shit AND the free shit. Yes they can afford it, very easily. They may not _want_ to pay, because they like seeing how big those numbers in their financial statements can get, but paying (the sorts of amounts that are in question) will _not_ have a significant negative (very likely no negative impact at all) impact on their lifestyle. That is what “rich” means, it means you have _plenty_ of money. On the other hand, even quite small increases in taxation on the poor will inevitably have very significant negative impact on their lifestyle. That is what “poor” means: every penny counts. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/82 "2011-08-24T13:27:53Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > It’s hard to argue rationally with people who believe this crap. The thought that in America income inequality is purely a result of work ethic is ridiculous. > > Being poor is not a moral failing it’s an unfortunate condition most poor find themselves in because of who they were born to, poor parents who did not have the money to educate their children how to escape poverty. Most wealthy people are not wealthy because of their own labors, they were born to wealthy parents who taught them how to maintain and grow that wealth. You criticize them for painting with a broad brush, then you go ahead and get out your ultra-wide roller… It’s unarguable that _some_ poverty is the result of bad luck (health crises, etc) and some is the result of bad choices (the aforementioned having kids way too early, dropping out of school, getting a job after HS so they can afford the payments on the camaro instead of investing in edumacation). As for the tax debate - I’d argue that it’s fundamentally unhealthy when half the country isn’t paying any income taxes - it creates a group with an incentive to clamor for ever more federal spending. Which is what got us to where we are, fiscally. [America didn’t become](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY) a great country through ever more handouts and federal interference. They became great through hard work, drive, entrepreneurial-ism, and risk-taking. Frankly, the current progressive tax structure inhibits all those things. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/83 "2011-08-24T13:55:18Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Why stop there? Why not ask how much it is for bread, gasoline, and movie tickets? Why weigh in all the things called “taxes” but not the rest of life’s expenses? Well, that’s what personal exemptions are for, right? 😉 > [@](#): > > Honestly, **Cheesesteak** , I’d see your point if taxes went to the same place for the same things. But they don’t. State taxes go to the state for state things and federal taxes go to the feds for federal things. They have isolated treasuries and isolated expenses. Therefore paying one isn’t an excuse to get out of paying the other any more than"But I just bought a new car" waives your obligation to the water bill. It depends on how you classify these things. You can classify them as Local, State and Federal items, but those are arbitrary distinctions. Ultimately, all of those functions are necessary for an operating government. Paving a road. Governmental Function issued to local municipalities to ensure proper focus Running a school. Governmental Function issued to local municipality. Funding shared with State Operating a prison. Governmental Function issued to State or Federal depending on jurisdiction Operating a standing military. Governmental Function issued to Federal These are all important governmental functions, and they all have to be funded one way or another. At what level the function is assigned has to do with our governmental structure, and where the job can best be done. Folks who contribute significant (to them) dollars towards maintaining a functioning government should not be called tax freeloaders. Why the focus on the rich? I don’t have an inherent desire to keep 50% of households off the federal tax books, so why do I want to tax the rich? Looking at things from a post WW2 perspective, the rich (say top 2%): - have more income (as a % of total income) than ever - have more wealth (as a % of total wealth) than ever - are taxed a the lowest percentage of income ever In the last 20 years, productivity gains have far outstripped gains in median family income, something that wasn’t true for 40 years post-war. Where did that money go, if not to the people who were becoming more productive workers? Tax them more, because as the economic pie has grown, they’ve been taking a larger and larger share of the pie. They have a bigger percentage of the economy, they can afford to pay a bigger percentage. Frankly, nobody is even talking about going back to the dark ages of Reagan-era taxation, merely going to a tax level that’s near historical lows. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/84 "2011-08-24T18:09:30Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It’s not “hatred”, it’s the conviction that people should live with the choices they made and reap what they sow. It’s the conviction that their _fiscal_ inferiors should keep their hands to themselves. When did you choose to be born with the intelligence you have? I never chose to be born with my IQ, I never chose to be born into a family which could afford to send me to MIT, and I never chose to be born with a fanatical desire to do things. My daughter inherited that from me, and was doing it long before she was old enough to choose. Likewise those born with learning disabilities or in dire poverty and not lucky enough to have the spark to get them out if it. > [@](#): > > Come on down to $40k and you’ve got a deal. Well, actually, I’m fine with the rates where they are/were…it’s the writeoffs (loopholes, if you want) that kill me. It shouldn’t be possible to write off and entire median income. We’ve got WAAAY too many deductions and people aren’t paying the tax they fairly owe. As the joke goes, now we’re just negotiating the price. The distribution and amount of tax increases is something that should be based on economic models of the impact. And I definitely agree with you about loophole elimination, but we need to be careful of the consequences of eliminating breaks such as the mortgage deduction. The argument, and the point of this thread, is with the Republicans who signed that p-o-s Norquist’s pledge to not raise taxes at all, which includes closing loopholes, but feel it is unfair for the poor not to pay, and thus want to raise taxes on them. > [@](#): > > Oh, I see. So when you take from the top, it’s to fund society for things like roads, schools, and hospitals, but when it’s from the bottom, it’s a pouty-lipped “Why do you want to hurt me?” It’s very simple. Decide what we need to spend money on, then decide the distribution of taxes to pay for it. My daughter is living off a grad school fellowship, and her husband is living off loans for law school. I’ve got plenty. It makes no sense at all to increase their taxes, which will hurt, to reduce my tax increase, which won’t. BTW, she is on the road to being a business school professor, who will make a fortune, so you can stuff your people in low brackets are lazy scum shtick. She will eventually pay plenty in taxes, and is eager for the chance to do so. > [@](#): > > You’re cherry-picking two extremes. Why can’t you just take a suburban kid that becomes a doctor and a suburban kid that becomes a trucker, and compare those? You think that all truckers could become doctors? Or all doctors could become truckers for that matter. I don’t know about the situation today, but truckers used to make good money. And society needs both. But, for whatever reason, society has decided to pay the doctor more. So, the doctor can afford to pay more in taxes with equal (or less) “pain.” Let’s just keep it in the doctor realm. The heart surgeon makes more than the GP. You want a world with all heart surgeons and no GPs? Income is not a metric of goodness. > [@](#): > > Where’d you get the 45% number? I said 10%. 10% shouldn’t pay, 90% should. That sounds fair to me. The number was created to indicate that the people who are pushing this make it sound like those who don’t pay taxes are spongers and freeloaders. Given income distributions, 10% means that those below the poverty line are going to be expected to pay taxes, which makes no sense. (Income taxes - they already pay other taxes.) Look at their rhetoric with an open mind. Do you think an economic argument is being made, or a moral one. What I’ve heard, hear and elsewhere, is that those who don’t pay FIT have no skin in the game, and just want to soak the rich for their luxuries like refrigerators and food and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/85 "2011-08-24T18:30:47Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > As for the tax debate - I’d argue that it’s fundamentally unhealthy when half the country isn’t paying any income taxes - it creates a group with an incentive to clamor for ever more federal spending. Which is what got us to where we are, fiscally. [America didn’t become](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY) a great country through ever more handouts and federal interference. They became great through hard work, drive, entrepreneurial-ism, and risk-taking. > > Frankly, the current progressive tax structure inhibits all those things. Thanks for making my point. I agree it is unhealthy that half the country pays no taxes - but not because their tax rate is so low, but because they don’t make enough to pay taxes. Your ilk wants to keep their wages down for the benefit of business profitability, but that isn’t good enough. You want to give them one more little punch to the balls by increasing their taxes also. Did America become a great country by allowing moguls to make their employees work six days a week, hire children for their factories, and lock in the seamstresses? Or did America become a great country by saying every child has a right to an education, and every worker has the right to safety and decent pay and working conditions. Yeah, yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist. If you think the progressive tax structure inhibits the desire to make more money, I can only conclude that you’ve never been out of the bottom tier. I know of no one who turned down a raise or a promotion because their incremental income might be taxed at a higher rate. Say I’m at the top of a bracket, and am offered a raise of $20K a year. That bumps me from 30% to 35%, say. That means I make only $13,000 more rather than $14,000. Yup, your average person will give up $13,000 because of that. Sure they will. Why do you people consider the well to do to be such morons? I think we’re way smart enough to take the money and not worry about the tax. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/86 "2011-08-24T18:45:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Thanks for making my point. I agree it is unhealthy that half the country pays no taxes - but not because their tax rate is so low, but because they don’t make enough to pay taxes. Your ilk wants to keep their wages down for the benefit of business profitability, but that isn’t good enough. You want to give them one more little punch to the balls by increasing their taxes also. LOL, holy non-sequitors Batman… and your strawman creation in that post would be the envy of **Marley** , even. Not sure what you even mean by this - you want to increase the pay of the bottom half? So do I. ‘My ilk’ wants to keep wages down? Not sure who my ilk is, unless you mean those who can think clearly, form coherent thoughts, have an open mind, don’t go all class-warfare-y on some random board, etc. For the record, I want the market to dictate how much they make. And I want their skills to be such that it justifies higher wages for them. > [@](#): > > Did America become a great country by allowing moguls to make their employees work six days a week, hire children for their factories, and lock in the seamstresses? Or did America become a great country by saying every child has a right to an education, and every worker has the right to safety and decent pay and working conditions. Yeah, yeah, Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist. America became (is) great because of the reasons I discussed. > [@](#): > > If you think the progressive tax structure inhibits the desire to make more money, I can only conclude that you’ve never been out of the bottom tier. I know of no one who turned down a raise or a promotion because their incremental income might be taxed at a higher rate. > Say I’m at the top of a bracket, and am offered a raise of $20K a year. That bumps me from 30% to 35%, say. That means I make only $13,000 more rather than $14,000. Yup, your average person will give up $13,000 because of that. Sure they will. No reasonable person on Earth would suggest that increasing taxes doesn’t harm economic growth or job creation. The applicable question is, does it harm more or less vs the cost of continued borrowing from Team Wonton. And it’s not a matter of ‘turning down a raise’, as you so amusingly put it. It’s a matter of, do I risk x amount of capital, energy, whatever, for y amount of payout, knowing that that payout would be reduced by z dollars in the form of tax bite. > [@](#): > > Why do you people consider the well to do to be such morons? I think we’re way smart enough to take the money and not worry about the tax. I have no idea what you mean by this. Again, please define ‘my people’. In general, well-to-do people are smarter than poor people, no question about it, but I wouldn’t suggest any causation there - it’s probably the other way around, or a confounding factor. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/87 "2011-08-24T18:51:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Why do you people consider the well to do to be such morons? I think we’re way smart enough to take the money and not worry about the tax. This, this, a thousand times this. Hell, I’m strongly considering moving across the country for an after-cost-of-living increase of 5% to my salary–you think making that 4% because taxes are higher is really going to matter? It’s still MORE MONEY. ---
**Author:** ![Rekd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Rekd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rekd)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/88 "2011-08-24T18:57:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > When did you choose to be born with the intelligence you have? I never chose to be born with my IQ, I never chose to be born into a family which could afford to send me to MIT, and I never chose to be born with a fanatical desire to do things. My daughter inherited that from me, and was doing it long before she was old enough to choose. Likewise those born with learning disabilities or in dire poverty and not lucky enough to have the spark to get them out if it. LoL, yeah because nobody has ever been successful if they were born with a certain IQ, or into a poor family etc. Nobody has ever taken it upon themselves to drag their poor, dumb ass up from the muck and into a successful life. Nobody. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/89 "2011-08-24T19:25:17Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > [America didn’t become](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY) a great country through ever more handouts and federal interference. They became great through hard work, drive, entrepreneurial-ism, and risk-taking. > > Frankly, the current progressive tax structure inhibits all those things. Interestingly enough, at the time of that speech, the top .01% of earners paid 70% of their income in taxes, and the top 1% paid an effective rate of 45%. Those rates are now down to the low 30’s. It’s a real shame that they screwed up the tax rates so bad. The country could have made something of itself. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/90 "2011-08-24T19:38:30Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > The only crap here is the liberal idea that someone is born with a destiny to be rich or poor and there’s nothing they can do about it. If they drop out of high school, it’s not their fault. If they got a liberal arts degree instead of engineering or a medical degree, there’s nothing they could have done differently. If they have kids at 22 instead of pouring themselves into a start-up, well, that’s just the way life goes. > > The left’s tendency to look at the pauper and say “He had no choice! There’s nothing he could’ve done differently!” is appalling. > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > You criticize them for painting with a broad brush, then you go ahead and get out your ultra-wide roller… > > It’s unarguable that _some_ poverty is the result of bad luck (health crises, etc) and some is the result of bad choices My statement is far more true and less broad then then either of of **Chessic Sense’s** There are certainly poor people who deserve the lives they’ve made for themselves. And certainly people who have just suffered unfortunate incidences. What I’m talking about is averages. The US has one of the lowest social mobility rates among first world nations. On average a person born into a poor family will most likely be poor their entire life. If you are born into a wealthy family you will most likely be wealthy your entire life. With the education and opportunity afforded to the rich and the poor, on average their own actions will not cause a poor person to become rich or a rich person to become poor. Hard work and dedication alone does nothing for anybody unless they also have opportunity. The wealthy can afford to buy opportunity for their own almost guaranteeing success children with only limited work ethics and little dedication. Where as a poor person has no ability to buy opportunity so they are left with only the hope of finding it through steadfast work ethic and solid dedication. If we are going to continue with a system that makes it enormously difficult for the poor to move up in social class I think it is only fair that it be equally difficult for the wealthy to maintain their social class. The easiest way to do that is to take money from them at a higher rate until our social mobility numbers are in line with other countries. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/91 "2011-08-24T19:43:55Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No reasonable person on Earth would suggest that increasing taxes doesn’t harm economic growth or job creation. Are you the sole arbitrator of reasonable people? There are a number of respected and reasonable economists that would disagree with you. What is done with the tax dollars has a lot to do with whether it hurts or helps economic growth and job creation. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/92 "2011-08-24T20:02:53Z")
> [@Rekd](#): > > LoL, yeah because nobody has ever been successful if they were born with a certain IQ, or into a poor family etc. > > Nobody has ever taken it upon themselves to drag their poor, dumb ass up from the muck and into a successful life. > > Nobody. 😃 And no one who has all the brains, ambition, and skill in the world has ever been stymied due to bad luck. Never happened. Everyone ends up in exactly the right place in life, and no one ever gets an inheritance or promoted above their ability or left to languish below their ability. Hell, where do you live? I want to move there. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/93 "2011-08-24T20:03:01Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Interestingly enough, at the time of that speech, the top .01% of earners paid 70% of their income in taxes, and the top 1% paid an effective rate of 45%. Those rates are now down to the low 30’s. OK, I’ll point this out. Remind me again who lowered those rates? And [remind me which party he was from?](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates) As JFK so eloquently put it > [@](#): > > Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, _ **an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits** _… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. (emphasis mine) ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/94 "2011-08-24T20:10:03Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > The US has one of the lowest social mobility rates among first world nations. On average a person born into a poor family will most likely be poor their entire life. If you are born into a wealthy family you will most likely be wealthy your entire life. With the education and opportunity afforded to the rich and the poor, on average their own actions will not cause a poor person to become rich or a rich person to become poor. Yup, a socialist-style government will do that for you (see: Europe). It will generally get you into a whole shitload of fiscal trouble, eventually (see: Europe). But I think you’re trying to solve the wrong problem. The issue isn’t how ‘fair’ the end result is for Americans, economically. The problem is how to balance the budget, and give more Americans more of a stake in the fiscal health of the economy, which is mostly dictated by the tax structure. Can any reasonable person here make an argument that having a permanent underclass beholden to Federal largess is inherently healthy for the economy? I admit it will create a permanent constituency for those politicians who want to count on their votes every 2 years (ie, Democrats). But it’s bad, and distorts the discussion about what’s best for the country. And if you think there’s crying about it now ("Don’t end Medicare as we know it!!) then wait until things [get so bad](http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-29/world/greece.riots.explainer_1_austerity-package-greece-cuts-and-tax-hikes?_s=PM:WORLD) that real austerity measures get put into place. Riots and pandemonium. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/95 "2011-08-24T20:13:33Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > OK, I’ll point this out. Remind me again who lowered those rates? And [remind me which party he was from?](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates) From your link > [@](#): > > Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. Wow, he went all the way down to a 70% marginal rate. I’m guessing if we reduced our top tax rate to 70%, the economy would start booming again. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/96 "2011-08-24T20:23:16Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > From your link Wow, he went all the way down to a 70% marginal rate. I’m guessing if we reduced our top tax rate to 70%, the economy would start booming again. Well, I’m certainly glad you read the piece. You must have seen the conclusion, then > [@](#): > > The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced. > > The tax cuts of the 1920s > The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928. > > The Kennedy tax cuts > Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent. > > The Reagan tax cuts > The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/97 "2011-08-24T20:28:51Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > Man, don’t you get it? You can’t raise taxes on the “job creators.” Otherwise they won’t be able to create jobs and help the working man. I actually agree with this. The tax code should reflect this. If you make over $x per year (say $500K) you pay 90% income tax. However, every job you create over what you created last year that pays over $y per year and provides benefits/your employee doesn’t have to be on welfare …you get to cut away part of that 90%. This way you have to actually CREATE JOBS to get the lower tax… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/98 "2011-08-24T20:31:25Z")
I’m always amazed when Republicans spout the line about how half the country doesn’t pay any federal income tax. I’m amazed not because it’s untrue, but because it’s a scathing rebuttal of Republican ideals. Only half the country pays federal income tax because of the huge wealth disparity in this country. If you want those folks to pay more, then give them the opportunities to do well so they can afford it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/99 "2011-08-24T20:34:37Z")
> [@BlinkingDuck](#): > > I actually agree with this. The tax code should reflect this. > > If you make over $x per year (say $500K) you pay 90% income tax. However, every job you create over what you created last year that pays over $y per year and provides benefits/your employee doesn’t have to be on welfare …you get to cut away part of that 90%. > > This way you have to actually CREATE JOBS to get the lower tax… 😃 Yeah, cause if there’s one thing this country needs, it’s a more complex tax code. :rolleyes: On second thought, didn’t Hopey McChange actually [get something like this passed?](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/checking-in-on-the-job-creation-tax-credit/) How did that work out for reducing unemployment? ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525/100 "2011-08-24T20:37:22Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Yeah, cause if there’s one thing this country needs, it’s a more complex tax code. :rolleyes: > > On second thought, didn’t Hopey McChange actually [get something like this passed?](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/checking-in-on-the-job-creation-tax-credit/) > > How did that work out for reducing unemployment? I was KIDDING! It’s sarcasm related to the fact that many people who make much money don’t actually create jobs or don’t create jobs for Americans…so the idea of not taxing the rich because they are ‘job creators’ is silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahahaha-tea-party-republicans-push-for-regressive-tax-hike/593525.md?page=6)