Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Robert Reich
HOW TO REBUT BILL O'REILLY'S BIGGEST LIE YET

“Taxes are through the roof on affluent Americans and business profits, but for the rest of Americans things are not so bad,” says Fox TV host Bill O’Reilly. “How much more can the government take from the affluent without crashing the entire free market economy?”

Ordinarily, I ignore Bill O’Reilly’s rants (he’s called me a “communist” and an “admirer of Karl Marx”) but as cable’s most-watched news host, O'Reilly poisons millions of minds daily. So when he lies about something as important as inequality and taxes, it’s necessary to rebut those lies. Here’s the truth:

1. Corporate taxes haven’t budged as a percent of GDP for more than 25 years. In 1989, corporate taxes amounted to 1.9% of GDP. Last year, they amounted to 1.9% of GDP.

2. Personal income taxes on the rich haven’t gone through the roof. To the contrary, they’ve plunged. 60 years ago, the rich paid federal income taxes over twice today’s rate. In 1953, the top marginal income tax was 91% -- applied to earnings in excess of $1,522,595 (adjusted for inflation). In 2013, after new Obama higher taxes on the rich went into effect, the federal income tax rate on income over $1,522,595 was 39.6%.

3. Moreover, in the 1950s and 1960s, the American middle class was surging and the top 1% got only 9 to 10 percent of total income. Now, the middle class is faltering and the top 1% is getting 18 to 20 percent of total income. If America had the same distribution of income as it did in 1979, before Ronald Reagan became President, the average incomes of America’s middle 20 percent of families would be $8,752 higher than today’s current middle-class incomes and the average income of the nation’s top 1 percent would be $824,844 less.

travelinman67 wrote:1. Reich IS a communist.
2. Klam is an idiot for citing Reich.

And Klam, don't waste my time with one of your, "How so?" trolls. Reich's theories are perennially incorrect, and only revered by fellow communists.

Chizzang wrote:We do not have a TAX PROBLEM
we are all taxed at a reasonable rate in comparison to the lifestyle we live here in the U.S.
We have a SPENDING problem

Also Note:
People who work for O'Reilly have already said his job is to fire up the crazies
and that's a direct quote from FOX Employees

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We do not have a TAX PROBLEM
we are all taxed at a reasonable rate in comparison to the lifestyle we live here in the U.S.
We have a SPENDING problem

Also Note:
People who work for O'Reilly have already said his job is to fire up the crazies
and that's a direct quote from FOX Employees

Is a capital gains tax well below the rate of a middle class salary reasonable?

Do you agree with Reich in that taxes on the rich and corporations are not historically high?

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:
Is a capital gains tax well below the rate of a middle class salary reasonable?

Do you agree with Reich in that taxes on the rich and corporations are not historically high?

Quit arguing percentages because they are used to mislead. You and Reich sound like the Democrats in our state. The governor increased the budget for his office by 9.1% while only proposing 1.25% for schools. The increase in the governor's budget is $200,000 while the increase for schools is $50 million. How you phrase it makes a big difference doesn't it?

Yes, the actual tax rates are lower. What is the amount of federal revenue from the top 1% or the top 10% today in comparison?

As Chizz stated, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Grizalltheway wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Quit arguing percentages because they are used to mislead. You and Reich sound like the Democrats in our state. The governor increased the budget for his office by 9.1% while only proposing 1.25% for schools. The increase in the governor's budget is $200,000 while the increase for schools is $50 million. How you phrase it makes a big difference doesn't it?

Yes, the actual tax rates are lower. What is the amount of federal revenue from the top 1% or the top 10% today in comparison?

As Chizz stated, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Why don't you tell us? You know, since you and the other conks are such champions of the plight of the rich white man.

HI54UNI wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Why don't you tell us? You know, since you and the other conks are such champions of the plight of the rich white man.

I knew you would have some stupid comment like this before I even read your post. Go look it up yourself. It's called self-reliance. Maybe you should try it sometime.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:We do not have a TAX PROBLEM
we are all taxed at a reasonable rate in comparison to the lifestyle we live here in the U.S.
We have a SPENDING problem

Also Note:
People who work for O'Reilly have already said his job is to fire up the crazies
and that's a direct quote from FOX Employees

Is a capital gains tax well below the rate of a middle class salary reasonable?

Do you agree with Reich in that taxes on the rich and corporations are not historically high?

Grizalltheway wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
I knew you would have some stupid comment like this before I even read your post. Go look it up yourself. It's called self-reliance. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Wait, you ask someone else for a fact YOU'RE too lazy to look up yourself, then turn around and lecture about self-reliance? Try not being such a sometime.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Is a capital gains tax well below the rate of a middle class salary reasonable?

Do you agree with Reich in that taxes on the rich and corporations are not historically high?

1. Yes, it should be 0%.
2. No, we have the highest or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Before you get the vapors, yes I know the effective tax rate is much lower. However, you need to take into consideration the compliance costs as well. IRS code is over 70,000 pages long. It costs an ass load of money to comply with that many pages of complex bullshit.

[/thread]

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:
Is a capital gains tax well below the rate of a middle class salary reasonable?

Do you agree with Reich in that taxes on the rich and corporations are not historically high?

Quit arguing percentages because they are used to mislead. You and Reich sound like the Democrats in our state. The governor increased the budget for his office by 9.1% while only proposing 1.25% for schools. The increase in the governor's budget is $200,000 while the increase for schools is $50 million. How you phrase it makes a big difference doesn't it?

Yes, the actual tax rates are lower. What is the amount of federal revenue from the top 1% or the top 10% today in comparison?

As Chizz stated, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: 1. Yes, it should be 0%.
2. No, we have the highest or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Before you get the vapors, yes I know the effective tax rate is much lower. However, you need to take into consideration the compliance costs as well. IRS code is over 70,000 pages long. It costs an ass load of money to comply with that many pages of complex bullshit.

[/thread]

Please provide stats that show how the tax rates are historically high.

Thanks.

CID1990 wrote:This government's annual operating budget is obscene. Even more so given the poormouthing we hear from departments such as mine as not having enough funding. Runaway waste and poor stewardship of public funds are the norm.

New tax revenues only make the problem worse. Go to a flat or a national sales tax. Cap borrowing at a reasonable percentage of GDP, and then force this government to live within its means. Our grandchildren will thank us.

All this talk about fairness in the tax system is just neo Bolshevism, repackaged for soft headed millenials and nostalgic boomers

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Please provide stats that show how the tax rates are historically high.

Thanks.

I've posted it on here several times before, plus it's common knowledge that the US has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, so no.

On top of that, the US is the only nation in the world that taxes it's citizens and businesses for income they have earned outside it's borders. There is a whole lot more to it than just what someone's tax rate is.

Ivytalk wrote:Gee, I'm impressed that our very own klam is FB friends with Robert "Don't Call Me Third" Reich! Must get a lot of cool socialist memes from that little dude.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:

I've posted it on here several times before, plus it's common knowledge that the US has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world, so no.

On top of that, the US is the only nation in the world that taxes it's citizens and businesses for income they have earned outside it's borders. There is a whole lot more to it than just what someone's tax rate is.

I remember you making the point regarding the cost of compliance and I think it's valid, but by how much? I don't recall you showing where today's taxes are historically higher.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Gee, I'm impressed that our very own klam is FB friends with Robert "Don't Call Me Third" Reich! Must get a lot of cool socialist memes from that little dude.

Thank you! but it came from a friend's post. I reached out to Robert but the **** refuses to friend me!

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I remember you making the point regarding the cost of compliance and I think it's valid, but by how much? I don't recall you showing where today's taxes are historically higher.

Maybe because I don't care what tax rates are historically. If you think high income earners actually paid 91% taxes in the 1940's and 50's, I've got some swamp land in the Mojave I wanna sell you.

As far as compliance costs are concerned...according to the IRS (trustworthy source for sure), for businesses and individuals (2012 numbers) 3,240,000,000 hours which comes out to 369,858 years and $37,000,000,000 in compliance costs for federal taxes alone for one stinking year.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Thank you! but it came from a friend's post. I reached out to Robert but the **** refuses to friend me!

Don't worry. Reich is a douche. I'll bet Bob Rubin would friend you!

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Maybe because I don't care what tax rates are historically. If you think high income earners actually paid 91% taxes in the 1940's and 50's, I've got some swamp land in the Mojave I wanna sell you.

As far as compliance costs are concerned...according to the IRS (trustworthy source for sure), for businesses and individuals (2012 numbers) 3,240,000,000 hours which comes out to 369,858 years and $37,000,000,000 in compliance costs for federal taxes alone for one stinking year.

Wow, those ARE high compliance costs.

The system definitely needs simplification.

How does the effective rate today compare historically? (Thread topic).