Permanent tax breaks for the upper 1% ?!?

[Ducimus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1

[Zachstar]

Oh my geez. Ok lets get this straight.

The tax cuts are going to expire. If possible the good parts for middle and lower will be kept but overall if those cant be salvaged the entire thing is going down. Obama isnt sinking the last of his liberal support by keeping it.

It is just a hed herring to keep businesses holding onto their money as long as possible to make things extra bad in the economy to help republicans. That is what the entire meme is about.

[gimpy117]

congress is just a case of the rich robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
it's time the mega rich ponied up to the situation. They used to pay up to 90% in taxes without major complaint. You'll notice that was in a time of great national budget distress (WWII) and when we had to basically outproduce the Russians in the cold war arms race. But now, when a similar distress is evident everybody is kicking and screaming.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

picture sourced from Wikipedia

[UnderseaLcpl]

It is just a hed herring to keep businesses holding onto their money as long as possible to make things extra bad in the economy to help republicans. That is what the entire meme is about.

I think you give them too much credit. The tax cuts were about votes and political capital, period. That's all they're still about. And if it were up to me, I'd expand them.

Cut state spending drastically, cut taxes drastically (especially on business), and watch the economy grow.

[Zachstar]

Grow in China you mean. Where companies have used the savings from the tax cuts to expand in.

You are laughable if you think expanding the tax cuts will grow business anywhere near the levels investment in technology will.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss:03:

[Sailor Steve]

congress is just a case of the rich robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
it's time the mega rich ponied up to the situation. They used to pay up to 90% in taxes without major complaint. You'll notice that was in a time of great national budget distress (WWII) and when we had to basically outproduce the Russians in the cold war arms race. But now, when a similar distress is evident everybody is kicking and screaming.
And there used to be no personal income tax at all. That it exists is an example of the government screwing everything up and then needing more money. "I know - let's come up with a system that will make the rich 'pay their fair share'! That'll show 'em!" So somebody comes up with a scheme, and makes it sound good, because getting even is always good. The answer is to tear down the current system, including the income tax, and force the government, not the people (even rich people) to tighten the belt.

[tater]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.

How about this, not tax cuts for anyone that doesn't pay at least a fair share.

A fair share is the entire federal budget (including deficit and debt service), divided by the population.

That means a family of 4 must pay 4 shares, or they never see a tax cut, ever.

Right now that's something like 12-13k per family member.

So any family of 4 paying less than 50 grand a year should be happy they are subsidized.

[Gerald]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.

How about this, not tax cuts for anyone that doesn't pay at least a fair share.

A fair share is the entire federal budget (including deficit and debt service), divided by the population.

That means a family of 4 must pay 4 shares, or they never see a tax cut, ever.

Right now that's something like 12-13k per family member.

So any family of 4 paying less than 50 grand a year should be happy they are subsidized. on a few things,but many others may do so when one of these days..

[gimpy117]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The top 1% already pays a higher % than ever, AND a far higher % than people below.



no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%

[Zachstar]

Businesses invest in technology, ZS. Marketable, usable technology. They also generate the revenue you want to invest in technology. Gotta have a horse to pull the cart, boss:03:

I always love it when someone says that companies invest in the future. What was that lovely bush era term... "Trickle-Down" economics.

They generate the revenue for themselves and do it greatly. Holding 1.8 TRILLION dollars hostage to influence the results of the election.

Their investments mostly are on technology they can build in china with labor that gets paid pennies on the dollar. And even then it amounts to little more than who can write the most patents with key technological advancements killed because a company wants to be a troll with its patents.

Oh and FYI they invested in technology for US when their Taxes were MUCH MUCH MUCH greater.

[Tchocky]

Not a great way to watch the economy grow - cutting taxes on people who already have lots of money and aren't likely to spend any more.
Expand the EITC.

[Zachstar]

The economy will grow again even if democrats win big in November. This is just like the other election year stunts corp groups do in order to try to drive turnout for republicans. 1.8 Trillion held while companies say they are suffering. Bah they will spend after the elections.

[Sailor Steve]

no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%
And in 1913 when the income tax was created they payed a whopping 7%.

The government raised the rates to help pay for wars, but mostly to teach the evil rich a lesson. Just because they did it before and can do it again doesn't make it right. The income tax is wrong - period.

[tater]

no they don't

in WWII they paid above 90%. the cold war through the 70's it was 90%

They pay a higher % of taxes collected, not a higher marginal rate. The two are unrelated, particularly given the dodges in the old system.

[tater]

I always love it when someone says that companies invest in the future. What was that lovely bush era term... "Trickle-Down" economics.

They generate the revenue for themselves and do it greatly. Holding 1.8 TRILLION dollars hostage to influence the results of the election.

Their investments mostly are on technology they can build in china with labor that gets paid pennies on the dollar. And even then it amounts to little more than who can write the most patents with key technological advancements killed because a company wants to be a troll with its patents.

Oh and FYI they invested in technology for US when their Taxes were MUCH MUCH MUCH greater.

Taxes were not greater. Taxes as a function of GDP have remained relatively constant in recent years, and were in fact far LOWER during that period. US government outlays used to be about 1/3 of what they are now as a function of GDP.

In the 1930s, for example, the high for US government spending was ~10% of GDP. Tax receipts were considerably lower then, too, on the order of 5-7% of GDP (the rest being deficit spending). After WW2 (where spending was more than double receipts), things stabilized and the receipts vs expenditures have been relatively constant since then at ~20% of GDP (receipts generally slightly lower than expenses, but over time it's real money).

[mookiemookie]

Cut state spending drastically, cut taxes drastically (especially on business), and watch the economy grow.

Except that doesn't happen.

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_gdp.gif

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_inc.gif

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/images/tax_wage.gif

The correlation between taxes and GDP or income growth rate is just not there.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Apparently the correlation between top income tax rate and GDP growth isn't there, but that's not what I was arguing for and anything beyond a very vague correlation wouldn't make much sense, anyway. For the record, though, I would cut it; 10% income tax for everybody, no corporate taxes, 1% capital gains tax, no property tax, no social security tax, low sales tax, and low universal tariffs. No price controls or subsidies, either.

[Platapus]

The government does not need to raise the tax rate, all they need, and in my opinion should, do is cut deductions.

I have never seen the logic in setting high tax rates and then allowing myriad deductions. How about lowering the tax rate and getting rid of the deductions.

Deductions only seem to benefit those who can afford tax attorneys and have access to "alternative" tax shelters.

How much of the IRS budget is spent dealing with tax deduction issues?

So no, I don't get worried if the rich have their tax rates increased from 36% to 39%, they have access to tax attorneys and have myriad ways of sheltering their money to the point they may be paying less in taxes than I do as a working slug. And in in the end, they are still rich.

[mookiemookie]

Apparently the correlation between top income tax rate and GDP growth isn't there, but that's not what I was arguing for and anything beyond a very vague correlation wouldn't make much sense, anyway.

It's meant more of a refutation of the trickle down, supply side, Reaganomics nonsense. But the idea still stands when you consider average taxes across all brackets as we can see from the chart below. Sure, it's only through 2004 but it's close enough for casual discussion.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif

Looking at that chart, I'll bet there's an interesting correlation between size of the federal deficit and tax rate for the top earning 0.01% of taxpayers. There's other factors at work there, so it's not as simplistic as that comparison would imply, but I bet there's something to it.

[The Third Man]

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax. Federal spending was at or less than 3% of GDP, there were no social programs to catch the failing. How ever did the US survive?

[Zachstar]

VERY harshly if you recall. Nothing to help the weak or poorest survive. Doing good was far more reliant on who you knew than your potential.

[The Third Man]

VERY harshly if you recall. Nothing to help the weak or poorest survive. Doing good was far more reliant on who you knew than your potential.

And how pray tell how would you/I recall that? Are you saying you were born some time between 1787 and 1920, or are you just thinking it would have been harder to suck off others back then? Which is what it is really about.

[Tribesman]

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax
Really?
Federal spending was at or less than 3% of GDP
Are you sure?
, there were no social programs to catch the failing
Even though government social programs started straight after the revolution?

So it raises the question, was any of those 3 things you claimed actually true?

[The Third Man]

Really?

Are you sure?

Even though government social programs started straight after the revolution?

So it raises the question, was any of those 3 things you claimed actually true?

Absolutely. The soldiers of the civil war marched on Washington to get their pensions. Many were killed and none recieved their pensions.

The 16th amendment which authorized the personal income tax went into effect in 1920.

Leave US history to the Americans. The Irish, by the way arrived in numbers in 1840 and recieved no exceptional treatment and yet we have a large irish population in the US who didn't die for lack of government intervention.

[mookiemookie]

From 1787 until 1920 there was no personal income tax.

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861)

[The Third Man]

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861)

Then why was the 16th amaendment necessary? Doesn't add up does it? And why are these folks mentioned The Socialist Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labor_Party_of_America)

[Tribesman]

Leave US history to the Americans.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Yet you just made 3 false claims about US history and when challenged on it added another falsehood

[The Third Man]

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Yet you just made 3 false claims about US history


Prove it. No wiki,

[Tribesman]

Prove it.
OK leaving aside the income taxes from the civil war era we can move on to the first peacetime income tax which was later ruled against which led to an amendment as tarriffs were insufficient to pay the mounting debt so was form 1040 introduced by the IRS before 1920?
While we are at debt that other false claim you madecan be dealt with easily by two simple questions. If govt debt was mounting a $2 million a day in the 1860s how can spending have been less than 3% of GDP, after the huge reduction in spending followed by a increase again for the spanish mess and another reduction how is the 7% figure 3 years befroe the amendement magicly less than the 3% you claim existed.
The third false claim you made was about social provisions, in what year did the revolutionaries create the first nationwide social provision for health and support which was deemed vital for the interests of trade and for the security of the country?

As you put in another fal;se claim in you next post could you answer the simple question of which year were the federal civil war pensions amended so that simple old age was counted for payment as the same as a disability during service?
While you are at it can you say how many days service people had to have to be eligable for the pension you claim no one got?

[The Third Man]

OK leaving aside the income taxes from the civil war era we can move on to the first peacetime income tax which was later ruled against which led to an amendment as tarriffs were insufficient to pay the mounting debt so was form 1040 introduced by the IRS before 1920?
While we are at debt that other false claim you madecan be dealt with easily by two simple questions. If govt debt was mounting a $2 million a day in the 1860s how can spending have been less than 3% of GDP, after the huge reduction in spending followed by a increase again for the spanish mess and another reduction how is the 7% figure 3 years befroe the amendement magicly less than the 3% you claim existed.
The third false claim you made was about social provisions, in what year did the revolutionaries create the first nationwide social provision for health and support which was deemed vital for the interests of trade and for the security of the country?

As you put in another fal;se claim in you next post could you answer the simple question of which year were the federal civil war pensions amended so that simple old age was counted for payment as the same as a disability during service?
While you are at it can you say how many days service people had to have to be eligable for the pension you claim no one got?

Not really proof. Good try though, I admire your thought of what is proof. But without extensive reasearch and footnotes, it is no more valid than what I stated in a less time consuming and believable form.

:har:

[Tribesman]

Not really proof.
Answer any of the questions factually and you have all the proof you need that what you wrote was false.
Its incredible that you would attempt to maintain that your obvious lies were true, unless of course your "American" knowledge of your countries history is so bad that you can't even understand the basics.

[The Third Man]

Why do we want to bring people, any people, down when it is in everyones interest to bring them up? Is it because it is easier for politicians to promote class warfare than to get out of the way and stop spending money?

[Tribesman]

Why do we want to bring people, any people, down when it is in everyones interest to bring them up?
Why are you unable to answer any of the points?
Is it because you know you were making up rubbish?
The real funny part is that you took one of the biggest federal expenses which itself was a social provision and ridiculously claimed it didn't occur.

That local education you got must be real bad:rotfl2:
Might I suggest you delete your posts and claim that you are being persecuted for holding an unpopular view.........its all the rage so I hear

[UnderseaLcpl]

It's meant more of a refutation of the trickle down, supply side, Reaganomics nonsense. But the idea still stands when you consider average taxes across all brackets as we can see from the chart below. Sure, it's only through 2004 but it's close enough for casual discussion. Well it doesn't have to be 100% current. We're talking about general, macroeconomic trends over time, so no biggie. I don't totally share your lack of faith in the concept of Reaganomics; it never really was was it really was supposed to be, but for the time being let's look at this chart.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif

Looking at that chart, I'll bet there's an interesting correlation between size of the federal deficit and tax rate for the top earning 0.01% of taxpayers. There's other factors at work there, so it's not as simplistic as that comparison would imply, but I bet there's something to it.
I think you already know that you're right about that. IIRC the top 10% account for an inordinate share of the total tax base, and the top 1% are to they as they are to us, but there are more factors at work. Inflation rates, federal expenditures, unfriendly business legislation (we could always pull out The Federal Registrar and see how many tens of thousands of pages were added to that), changes in trade policy, etc. All of that affects the GDP, and government spending, whether the money is there or not, affects it directly as it's part of the calculation. So while there may be a vague correlation, I'd agree that it isn't the only factor, although I suspect we'll differ in opinion upon exactly what is and is not a major factor and why.

Also, something is bugging me about that graph. It shows everyone as paying positive percentiles of income in taxes. While I have no doubt that taxation in total costs everyone, it doesn't cost everyone in the listed categories. There should be some negative taxes in there for the bottom 20%, maybe more. If the graph is based on taxes witheld it would, when cross-referenced with tax burden per bracket, distort the burden borne by about a third of the population. This in turn further renders the aforementioned correlation inaccurate because a greater portion is being paid by the middle and upper income levels with the middle class being responsible for a significant portion of economic demand, especially in a service economy. Most perturbatory.

For the moment, I'm going to check the boards once more before I go to sleep, but I'll pick up on this tommorrow and maybe add some graphs. There's a really good site that allows you to customize and overlay graphs with virtually every type of US economic data you can imagine, but for the life of me I can't find it right now.

[The Third Man]

Post as mantyn graphs as you wish. People who work are just tired of those who don't. And the politicians who think that is alright. Including the Mr. vacation guy in the White House, Barack Obama.

[Tribesman]

Post as mantyn graphs as you wish
Or post any graph you so may wish.
Though in your case I would suggest against using any graph supplied from the US govt as they would show that you are lying.
I might also suggest against showing legislation relating to the taxation system of the US federal govt.....but they would also show that you are lying.
I might suggest linking to the US constitution....but that would show that you are lying
The Dept of defense might come to your aid with your claims....if what you said was true instead of false.
Budget office...yous a liar
schools and colleges....yous aliar
library of congress.....yous a liar
Third man.........................yous are shown by your own words, please forgive this dumb mick for pointing it out that your "American history" is really detatched from American history as I am sure that a foriegner pointing out the basic lack of knowledge on your part must really chafe in the under regions.
So .......................
sorry I meant .........................(edited by)

[tater]

It's meant more of a refutation of the trickle down, supply side, Reaganomics nonsense. But the idea still stands when you consider average taxes across all brackets as we can see from the chart below. Sure, it's only through 2004 but it's close enough for casual discussion.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif

Looking at that chart, I'll bet there's an interesting correlation between size of the federal deficit and tax rate for the top earning 0.01% of taxpayers. There's other factors at work there, so it's not as simplistic as that comparison would imply, but I bet there's something to it.

That chart is meaningless.

That is the top RATE, but says nothing at all about what those top earners actually PAID as a rate.

Back in the old days, the rates were very high—but no one actually paid them. That's the secret you forget. When the top marginal rates dropped, the DODGES also dropped. Look at AMT, now, for example.

You post stuff like that, and people who don;t know better think that the rich got some huge tax cut when the marginal rates dropped. they did not. You can see the amount paid by quintile, and it actually has tended UP over time for the top quintile.

Look at John Kerry. The year he ran for president, his effective tax rate was 15% (taxes/income). His marginal rate was 39%. So back in the day, your marginal rate might be 70%, but your effective rate was probably 20-something %. Some family that only makes 500k a year has a marginal rate of 38%, but their effective rate is likely in the high 20s or low 30s.

Using charts like that might imply, for example, that the poor pay a 14% rate. They in fact pay NEGATIVE taxes. Their effective rate turns out to be below zero. What matters is taxes COLLECTED.

Bottom line is that the only people who deserve tax cuts are people who actually PAY. Within that, the people most deserving of cuts are those who pay MORE, specifically those who already subsidize others. Anyone not at least pulling their weight never deserves a cut, IMO.

[Tribesman]

That is the top RATE, but says nothing at all about what those top earners actually PAID as a rate.

Well done, its only muppets that pay big tax.
Or arrogant muppets that get caught thinking they are above income tax.
Top earners pay bugger all income tax, thats the way it works. Switch tax to tarrifs and the top spenders who in theory should be picking up the tax bill will financesmuggling and so not only avoid the taxesn they are due but also benefit from business with every other bugger who thinks things are too much.
Income tax originaly only hit the biggest earners, they avoided paying.
Other people were brought into income tax, they picked up the bill of those that avoided paying.
Chasing people who avoided paying meant more expense which means more revenue is needed to chase those who have to pay who didn't used to have to pay.
Its a self feeding cycle.

[mookiemookie]

That chart is meaningless.

That is the top RATE, but says nothing at all about what those top earners actually PAID as a rate.

Back in the old days, the rates were very high—but no one actually paid them. That's the secret you forget. When the top marginal rates dropped, the DODGES also dropped. Look at AMT, now, for example.

You post stuff like that, and people who don;t know better think that the rich got some huge tax cut when the marginal rates dropped. they did not. You can see the amount paid by quintile, and it actually has tended UP over time for the top quintile.

Look at John Kerry. The year he ran for president, his effective tax rate was 15% (taxes/income). His marginal rate was 39%. So back in the day, your marginal rate might be 70%, but your effective rate was probably 20-something %. Some family that only makes 500k a year has a marginal rate of 38%, but their effective rate is likely in the high 20s or low 30s.

Using charts like that might imply, for example, that the poor pay a 14% rate. They in fact pay NEGATIVE taxes. Their effective rate turns out to be below zero. What matters is taxes COLLECTED.

Bottom line is that the only people who deserve tax cuts are people who actually PAY. Within that, the people most deserving of cuts are those who pay MORE, specifically those who already subsidize others. Anyone not at least pulling their weight never deserves a cut, IMO.


What you're describing is effective tax rate. It follows much the same pattern. The data is not meaningless and you don't get to discount data without providing your own. :) :

http://www.epi.org/page/-/img/040710-snapshot-final.jpg

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

And seeing as that incomes for top earners have grown exponentially over those of everyone else, asking them to pay more is only fair.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg

[tater]

I said it was the effective tax rate.

What are the "top 400 families?" Is it actually just 400 households making a gazillion bucks a year?

One, they are not statistically meaningful---though they likely pay far more taxes than is a fair share---effective rate is silly, really, it's total dollars paid in, it's not like if you make a billion a year you use more services than someone who makes 100k a year, after all.

Two, the second chart seems wrong, and I have no idea what the source actually is. MY effective tax rate is far higher than those listed (it's on the tax report I get from the accountant every year). More like 28% or more. Maybe if we cheated on our taxes like Obama cabinet members we'd pay less, I dunno.

Ah, I see, that's just income tax. Throw FICA in there. CBO charts consistently show "all federal taxes" having an effective rate in the high 20s to low 30s as income level rises to the top 1%.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1

for the top 20%, the current effective rate is 27.1%. For the top 1% it is 31.2%. This is TAXES ACTUALLY COLLECTED. So that is after all the dodges, the average, effective rate for the top 1% is 31.2% of income.

[tater]

They pay FAR more. More as a %, and more in terms of shares. The cost of running government has exactly nothing to do with the amount of money earned by people. The cost of government should be a fixed expense, roughly scaled to population.

I pay rather a lot of taxes. I use, lesse, roads, and my family's share of "freedom" as secured by our military (4 shares).

So, I use the roads as much as any other father of 2 with a wife, and I use 4 shares of the military... why should I pay 15 shares of tax, exactly? Why is that more fair than only paying 14 shares of tax for our family of 4?

Why should someone paying less than 1 share EVER get a tax break?



Other people were brought into income tax, they picked up the bill of those that avoided paying.

No, the government spent more and more. At this point, it's not like anyone "not rich" is picking up the US tab, tax rates could be zero for all byut the top 20%, and revenue would barely change.

[Zachstar]

And how pray tell how would you/I recall that? Are you saying you were born some time between 1787 and 1920, or are you just thinking it would have been harder to suck off others back then? Which is what it is really about.

Open a History book. Might help ya some.