whysoserious
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8,170
- Reaction score
- 3,199
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
what you are discussing is only a matter of instant revenue. over longer periods of time, the "sweet range" is actually quite broad. and the growth effects are generally immediate as well.
which is why you shouldn't only cut taxes, but also cut government.
True. It is not as if the OWS want to return government to constitutional limits or be fiscally responsible.They all have their own agendas. There are certain common themes that run through them. Eventually, if the movement takes off, the common themes will become its agenda. This isn't like the Tea Party. There's no Dick Armey and no Koch Bros. running the show.
What is the impact of the massive increase in the scope, reach and size of government? What impact do those 80,000 regulations that cost the people more than one trillion additional dollars have?In the 60s a family only needed to have one person working 40 hours a week to provide housing, health care, food, transportation, etc. Now it takes two or more people working and they're being expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week. Despite that, they're having a harder time covering those same basics.
Would you explain marginal rates versus effective rates please?Taxes are way lower today than they were before the great society.
Why do you behave as if you are unaware of the difference between marginal rates and effective rates? I believe you do. So are you intentionally misrepresenting?The Great Society legislation was passed between 1964 and 1966. In 1963 the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. Today it is 35%. Long term capital gains were taxed at 50% in 1963, where today they are taxed at 15%. The top estate tax bracket in 1963 was 70%. Today it is 35%. Etc.
Would you explain marginal rates versus effective rates please?
Why do you behave as if you are unaware of the difference between marginal rates and effective rates? I believe you do. So are you intentionally misrepresenting?
What makes you think that is true?Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.
Yes. you mix and match. I believe you know that as the top marginal rate came down the exemptions that kept the effective rate reasonable were taken away. So even through the top marginal rate came down the effective tax rate increased somewhat. If what I am saying is true, and if you know it then your are being deceptive.Marginal tax rate is the top rate you pay, effective is the overall rate you pay. So, like if you make $15k and there is a 0-$10k tax bracket with a rate of 5% and a $10k-$20k bracket with a rate of 10%, your marginal tax rate is 10%, your effective is 6.67% ((5% * $10k + 10% * $5k) / $15k).
Not sure how you think that is misleading or related to what I am saying at all. Can you explain?
Yes. you mix and match. I believe you know that as the top marginal rate came down the exemptions that kept the effective rate reasonable were taken away. So even through the top marginal rate came down the effective tax rate increased somewhat. If what I am saying is true, and if you know it then your are being deceptive.
The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.
Could you please post that historical data for reference? (assuming it's a link) Thank you in advance
What makes you think that is true?
Then you would have been wrong.
Federal government hasn't actually grown much as a portion of GDP since the great society. It goes up and down as we get in and out of wars and the GDP booms and busts, but it's almost always been between 30% and 35% since the great society. The only exception is the Bush calamity of launching two simultaneous wars and crashing the economy at the same time. That knocked it up to 42% briefly. It's going back down again now as the economy picks up and we pull out of the wars somewhat.
Raising taxes certainly needs to be part of any deficit reduction program, yes. IMO we need to do three things- raise taxes on the rich, cut entitlement spending and cut military spending. With the deficit the size it is today, there really isn't any way we can close it if we leave any of those three off the table.
1979 | 4939 |
1980 | 4965 |
1981 | 4982 |
1982 | 4972 |
1983 | 5039 |
1984 | 5088 |
1985 | 5256 |
1986 | 5228 |
1987 | 5301 |
1988 | 5289 |
1989 | 5292 |
1990 | 5234 |
1991 | 5152 |
1992 | 4931 |
1993 | 4758 |
1994 | 4620 |
1995 | 4475 |
1996 | 4354 |
1997 | 4226 |
1998 | 4196 |
1999 | 4135 |
2000 | 4129 |
2001 | 4132 |
2002 | 4152 |
2003 | 4210 |
2004 | 4187 |
2005 | 4138 |
2006 | 4133 |
2007 | 4127 |
2008 | 4206 |
2009 | 4430 |
2010 | 4443 |
I actually started looking a while back. I did not find reliable data prior to 1979 either.The only historical data I'm finding on historical effective tax rates only goes back to 1979, but it shows the top 1% paying 37% in 1979 and 27% today. It also shows corporations paying 14% in 1979 and 9% now. The middle's effective tax rates dropped substantially during that period too, from 19% to 14%. And that's just half the time range I'm talking about. If you have data going back to the 60s, please post it, but it seems like the effective tax rate story is consistent with what you would expect to result from a slashing of the top tax rates.
Okay. Thank you.Um, history? Personal recollection? Statistical data? Actually a little bit of each.
The story you paint here shows that all rates were reduced and not just for the rich. So the percentage of the taxes paid by the rich continues to be very large compared to the middle class.
You don't have to travel across the pond for this. You can actually look closer to home. From 1932 until 1980 the top marginal rate ranged from 63% to 94%. Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.
You should report me. :ssst:
Let me ask, if i linked to world net daily or newsmax would it be more/less or the same as far as bias?
I'm sure he was talking about Cain.No one mentioned that Bill Clinton was involved.
Is that why you didn't link, because you knew we would laugh our heads off if it was WND? Never mind - we don't want to know.:roll:
Oh, how rich. You post a snarky misleading and over sized screen shot taken from a liberal leaning, pop culture, collection blog and think that it should be taken seriously but the retort to that if that it were came from say a WND, or NewsMax is to be laughed at is just the type of dishonest debate of late from posers that do NOT further any sort of dialogue.
Got it?
j-mac
That is certainly one way to make your post irrelevant. At least teamosil has the intellectual courage to post a statistic that is relevant.Or to keep it simple, just the top marginal rates going back to 1913: Historical Top Tax Rate
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?