Based on the amount of money this is compared to in the past, I voted yes.Just curious, how many of you think that a 4.6% increase in marginal tax rates on the highest tax bracket is "one of the biggest tax hikes in US history?"
Based on the amount of money this is compared to in the past, I voted yes.
Based on the amount of money this is compared to in the past, I voted yes.
Besides the fact that danarhea again proved that good economics and statistics is thoroughly dead here as indicated by your argument, the 4.6% is a tiny tax hike in history. And if we want to look at your reasoning, the tax hike here even on dollars is small compared to the first income tax which had a benchmark of zero.
Ehh, that is debatable. Millionaires per capita (or the 1940's equivalent in real dollars) is probably much much much higher today. Therefore the total tax revenue is quite valid.
Most likely, this tax hike represents one of the biggest income transfers in real dollars. Although i am only speculating.
But if we're going purely by total tax revenue, merely because it collects a seemingly record amount (which it probably won't) that money is not inflated adjusted. To really argue the point on total tax revenues, we need to inflation adjust the amounts collected by other tax collections. Remember that WWII debt was over $2 trillion in today's dollars, much of that paid with tax hikes and debt. God knows just how much total tax revenue the jump to 91% back in the 30s brought in when we dollar adjust it.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that inflation since the tax cut has increased more then 4.6%. Raising taxes 4.6% on money that has been degraded by more then 4.6% doesn't suggest that it is one of the biggest income transfers in real dollars. What value are we giving to the real dollar?
If we raise your taxes 5% on dollars that have degraded 10% due to inflation, how many real dollars have we collected?
You are missing the point though, as inflation is not the issue. What if only one person was taxed 90%, although the tax increase was hiked from 50%-90%? There are more high income earners now than there were then.
Again you are missing the point on inflation. It is not the tax increase that is important, it is the amount of currency transferred per capita.
If you want to use cpi deflators, be my guest; although it is quite unnecessary. After the great depression, how many high income earners were being taxed over 90%, 80%, 70% etc...?
The huge hike will be jacking up the dividend tax-which is now around 45% to over 65%
Don't know. Hence why we need more data. But purely from a % of income, this cannot be one of the highest given historical tax rates.
Where are you getting that? Right now the qualified dividend rate is either 0% or 15% depending on your AGI. Last I checked, Obama wants it to go to 28% where it was before the cut.
And unqualified dividends are ordinary.
Where are you getting your information from?
I guess you forget that owners of a corporation pay are taxed TWICE on corporate profits.
Then what was the point of your thread? Surely we do not need a poll to decipher whether we think 4.6% is greater than 10%.
From a sheer quantitative perspective, adjusting for inflation, this was one of the biggest tax hikes ever. As in a large income transfer.
Well if you want to calculate it that way, you're still mathematically wrong.
Corporate tax rates, while having much lower thresholds top out at 35% (well, stated). Therefore highest tax bracket would see profits first taxed at 35% and then at 15%, for a total of 50%.
Actually it works like this
I own 10% of a company that makes a million
so my pre tax share is 100k
35% tax on that and its down to 65K
15% tax on 65K is about 9750
leaving me 55250
so the rate is about 44%
now jack up dividend taxes to almost 40% like Bamboob wants to do
what is the rate gonna be
Not quite. Not adjusted for inflation, it's on a nominal dollar value a large tax hike. But nominal dollars don't really tell us all that much. Furthermore, nominal dollar measures will constantly be increasing, meaning every tax hike of material size will be of the largest. It's like Hollywood's claim about movies making more money. None of it deals with inflation pegging.
Your assumptions cause you to shoot yourself in the foot. There are more people now, and workers are more productive, hence we have more millionaires (adjusting for inflation), or a greater proportion of people in the higher tax bracket. That era was more like Moscow is now; more billionaires live there than NYC, yet NYC is exponentially more wealthy.
So lets say Moscow has higher progressive tax rates. Do you really believe their highest tax bracket would take in more revenue than our new top bracket rate?
But again, as you choose to ignore in my post post, the issue is actually about tax revenues. As stated before a 4.6% increase on 100 millionaires all making $500,000 in earned income will bring in significently less then a 52% increase on 10 billionaires making $500 million in earned income.
Merely because you have more rich people does not equate to greater tax revenues and tax revenues seems to be how we're discussing whether or not the 4.6% increase is really one of the largest in US history.
Depends how high their highest bracket is.
Just curious, how many of you think that a 4.6% increase in marginal tax rates on the highest tax bracket is "one of the biggest tax hikes in US history?"
Out of curiosity, why did you decide to structure as a corporation rather then a partnership like organization?
It seems to me that you could have done thing to minimize your tax liability. Better then complaining.
Interesting.You can't go with the amount of money because, due to inflation over the years, you cannot make a meaningful comparison.
You have to go with percentage of income. The record, based on percentage of income, is held by FDR, who increased the highest tax bracket to 90%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?