RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Julian Castro Cites 90 Percent Tax On Rich In Defending Alexandria - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Julian Castro Cites 90 Percent Tax On Rich In Defending Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez On Tax Hikes Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 50,209
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 07 January 2019 - 02:53 AM

Julian Castro Cites 90 Percent Tax On Rich In Defending Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez On Tax Hikes

Washington Examiner
by Naomi Lim
January 06, 2019 06:56 PM

Excerpt:

Likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro agrees with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that tax rates on some of the wealthiest Americans should skyrocket.

"Oh, I can support folks at the top paying their fair share," Castro told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday when asked directly whether he could endorse the high-profile New York Democrat's idea.

The Obama-era Housing and Urban Development secretary, who is expected to officially announce he's running for the White House this week, made the comments after Ocasio-Cortez caught flak for suggesting people earning more than $10 million could be taxed between "60 or 70 percent."

In offering support to Ocasio-Cortez, Castro provided historical context given the current highest marginal income tax bracket is 37 percent for those receiving more than $500,000 a year.

"There was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent, even during Reagan's era in the 1980s it was around 50 percent" the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, said.

Castro also floated "that we get more serious about making sure the corporations pay their fair share," so the country can fund policy programs like "Medicare-for-All," as well as universal pre-kindergarten and higher education.

"During this campaign, if I run, I'm going to be very up front with the American people on how we would do that because I think that they are owed that, but it is worth it. It is worth it in this country for us to do that," he said, vowing not to be "a single issue candidate."

*snip*

Full Story
0

#2 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,727
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 03:16 AM

:rolleyes:

There is so much wrong with everything he says, let me just sum up his same old tired position.

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/uploads/1530386381/gallery_6133_220_2157.jpg
0

#3 User is offline   tailgunner 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,573
  • Joined: 09-April 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 03:22 AM

Thank god there's no dems rich enough to worry about this! Hey, how about a 90% Hollywood, sports tax? I sure the actors and sport personalities would love paying their fair share! Each and every paycheck.
0

#4 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,727
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 04:52 AM

Quote

There was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent

And for the morons who keep tossing that around as some sort of justification or pie in the sky path to fund their socialism, or the always insufferable "thank the 90% tax for your highways" twaddle...

Quote

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s

Tax Foundation
August 4, 2017
Scott Greenberg

excerpt:

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/uploads/1540273186/gallery_6133_220_58775.jpg

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

*SNIP*

LINK

This post has been edited by grimreefer: 07 January 2019 - 05:23 AM

0

#5 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,375
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:05 AM

View PostLiz, on 07 January 2019 - 02:53 AM, said:

Castro also floated "that we get more serious about making sure the corporations pay their fair share,"


First of all, EVERYONE within the corporation pays individual income tax. Why should the organization itself pay an income tax? Corporations use positive cash flow to innovate, expand, and hire more people. Why would we want to reduce a corporation's ability to do those things?

Secondly, one of the things people look at when choosing a location for a corporation is the tax liabilities of that location. In a private sector economy like ours, corporations provide the jobs that pay our bills. WE WANT people to choose the United States as the location for their corporation. Lower corporate taxes play a huge role in attracting job-providing corporations.

Regarding the accusation that corporations "didn't build that" and they're profiting off of infrastructure paid for by others, it's a flawed claim. Corporations pay for water, gas, and electrical utilities just like everyone else. Their trucks also pay fees that pay for the additional wear and tear on our roads. They pay a big chunk of their employees health care costs. My employer pays over half of my health care premium! They also contribute money to their employees retirement plan. Many provide discounts on products and services to their employees. Some even cover job-related education costs. The list goes on and on...

The concept that the organizations we create to employ ourselves somehow still owe a "fair share" to society is crazy considering all of the above. It's nothing more than an appeal to emotions by power-hungry leftists to their easily manipulated base.
0

#6 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:13 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 07 January 2019 - 09:05 AM, said:

First of all, EVERYONE within the corporation pays individual income tax. Why should the organization itself pay an income tax? Corporations use positive cash flow to innovate, expand, and hire more people. Why would we want to reduce a corporation's ability to do those things?

Secondly, one of the things people look at when choosing a location for a corporation is the tax liabilities of that location. In a private sector economy like ours, corporations provide the jobs that pay our bills. WE WANT people to choose the United States as the location for their corporation. Lower corporate taxes play a huge role in attracting job-providing corporations.

Regarding the accusation that corporations "didn't build that" and they're profiting off of infrastructure paid for by others, it's a flawed claim. Corporations pay for water, gas, and electrical utilities just like everyone else. Their trucks also pay fees that pay for the additional wear and tear on our roads. They pay a big chunk of their employees health care costs. My employer pays over half of my health care premium! They also contribute money to their employees retirement plan. Many provide discounts on products and services to their employees. Some even cover job-related education costs. The list goes on and on...

The concept that the organizations we create to employ ourselves somehow still owe a "fair share" to society is crazy considering all of the above. It's nothing more than an appeal to emotions by power-hungry leftists to their easily manipulated base.

Exactly. I would really like someone (from the left) to explain what the phrase “paying their fair share” means. As in, explain it clearly and precisely, and with reasoning why.
0

#7 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 11,770
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:23 AM

View Postzurg, on 07 January 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

Exactly. I would really like someone (from the left) to explain what the phrase "paying their fair share" means. As in, explain it clearly and precisely, and with reasoning why.


I would like a definition of ":fair share". . .
0

#8 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:40 AM

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets.
0

#9 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,481
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 09:49 AM

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill at a rate of 10%, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets. For individuals, this applies to all income earned above the poverty line.
0

#10 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:00 AM

View PostJerryL, on 07 January 2019 - 09:49 AM, said:

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill at a rate of 10%, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets. For individuals, this applies to all income earned above the poverty line.


Why is 10% for all of the taxpayers you describe the most fair tax rate?
0

#11 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,375
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:04 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 07 January 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets.


You forgot to mention the tax rate.
0

#12 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:06 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 07 January 2019 - 10:04 AM, said:

You forgot to mention the tax rate.


I didn’t forget.

“Fair share” in terms of rate would depend on income level.
0

#13 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,375
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:14 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 07 January 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

I didn’t forget.

“Fair share” in terms of rate would depend on income level.


Apple had a net income of $59 billion in 2018 (source). What tax rate would be considered a "fair share"?
0

#14 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,481
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:16 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 07 January 2019 - 10:04 AM, said:

You forgot to mention the tax rate.

He didn't forget. He deliberately avoided rate issue.

For him, if I earn 10X as much as you, paying 10X the income tax you do is not "fair." It might be fair if I pay 30X what you pay, but then again if I earn 20X what you earn, 60X might not be "fair." In that case, me paying 100X or 200X what you pay might be the "fair" rate.

The word "fair" has no meaning to the a perpetual victim and a thief.
0

#15 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,910
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:17 AM

View PostJerryL, on 07 January 2019 - 09:49 AM, said:

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill at a rate of 10%, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets. For individuals, this applies to all income earned above the poverty line.

Thanks. This answers the question.

View PostThat_Guy, on 07 January 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

A good way to think of "fair share" would be an individual or corporate tax bill, paid on-time and in full, based on income derived from domestic and foreign assets.

This doesn’t answer the question and is therefore useless.

View PostThat_Guy, on 07 January 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

I didn’t forget.

“Fair share” in terms of rate would depend on income level.

This is useless too.
0

#16 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:19 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 07 January 2019 - 10:14 AM, said:

Apple had a net income of $59 billion in 2018 (source).


Does that include income derived from foreign assets - yes or no?
0

#17 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,375
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:20 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 07 January 2019 - 10:19 AM, said:

Does that include income derived from foreign assets - yes or no?


Read the source.
0

#18 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 34,317
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:20 AM

View PostJerryL, on 07 January 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:

He didn't forget. He deliberately avoided rate issue.

For him, if I earn 10X as much as you, paying 10X the income tax you do is not "fair." It might be fair if I pay 30X what you pay, but then again if I earn 20X what you earn, 60X might not be "fair." In that case, me paying 100X or 200X what you pay might be the "fair" rate.

The word "fair" has no meaning to the a perpetual victim and a thief.


I wonder if some_one claims any tax deductions...
0

#19 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,600
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:23 AM

View PostJerryL, on 07 January 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:

For him, if I earn 10X as much as you, paying 10X the income tax you do is not "fair."


This is nonsense. Your income tax bill has nothing to do with my income tax bill.

View PostNatural Selection, on 07 January 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

Read the source.


Do you not know, or are you unwilling to say?
0

#20 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 11,481
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 07 January 2019 - 10:23 AM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 07 January 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

I wonder if some_one claims any tax deductions...

You absolutely know that some_idiot takes every single tax break that he can find. Progressives are all about forcing their worldview on YOU while insulating themselves.
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users