The "Tax The Rich" Delusion on the Left

[cpwill]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.

The Democrats’ incoming House majority—and its Senate caucus of presidential wannabes—are about to face fiscal reality. When confronted with how to pay for their extraordinarily expensive policy agenda, the answer of liberal lawmakers, analysts, and advocates is nearly always the same: tax the rich....

Even if the 2017 tax cuts and 2018 defense spending hikes expire, the CBO projects a baseline budget deficit rising to 5 percent of GDP over the next decade. Additionally, the far-left wish list described above totals 18 percent of GDP. That brings a staggering budget deficit of 23 percent of GDP, or the current equivalent of $4.6 trillion per year. In closing that massive budget gap, tax scores from CBO’s “Budget Options” report show that upper-income tax increases are plausibly limited to one or two percent of GDP.... Imagine 100 percent tax rates on all income earned over the $1 million threshold. That’s politically impossible, but for the sake of argument, imagine it. Even that would add just 5 percent of GDP in revenues—until people quickly stop working at that income. Slightly more realistically, doubling the top two tax brackets, to 70 percent and 74 percent, would raise at best 1.6 percent of GDP, and that’s probably optimistic. Alternatively, the popular liberal Social Security solution of eliminating the payroll tax wage cap of $128,400 would close barely half of the system’s long-term shortfall of 1.5 percent of GDP. It would also bring marginal tax rates (including state taxes) above 60 percent in some states, thus leaving little room for additional income taxes to close the much larger Medicare shortfall or finance new spending...

In reality, spending like Europe requires taxing like Europe. This means, in addition to federal and state income taxes, a value-added tax (VAT)—essentially a national sales tax—that affects all families. CBO data estimates that raising 15 percent of GDP would require imposing an 86 percent VAT rate, or hiking the payroll tax from 15.3 percent to 56.5 percent. No wonder many spenders prefer the “just tax the rich” fairy tale...

A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.



A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

I think we need to reimpose the property for franchise requirement.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

 

[RabidAlpaca]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years, you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

You'll declare there's always, always enough money for guns, but never enough for butter. For you guys it's truly purely about priorities, not about feasibility.

 

[Aristaeus]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

There are a number of European countries with a decent welfare program that has similar or lower tax rates than the US. Alternatively, you guys could spend a lot less on the military and still have the biggest military spend in the world.

Depends whether you want a compassionate country that helps it's people when in need, or if you want a country that ignores their needs. The former generally produces happier citizens and lower social divisions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

Hmm... did we have massive federal income redistribution spending during the 50's? It is amazing that folks who praise the federal taxation levels (as a percentage of GDP) in past decades completely ignore the federal spending levels (as a percentage of GDP) in those same decades.

The OP notes that ever more federal spending is being proposed even as we refuse to tax enough to support our current federal spending. As a practical matter, why don't we (meaning our congress critters who allegedly represent our wishes) first raise federal taxation (rates?) to cover all current federal spending and start to reduce the national debt? Only then should we debate adding even more federal spending programs and start to discuss the additional taxation (rates?) required to actually fund them.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

That "50's middle class expansion" was due in great part to the fact that the USA was the sole industrial power in the world after WWII, and much of our production and investment was being used to rebuild everywhere else in the world.

There was plenty of work in a growth market, and not enough bodies to fill the need...so wages were "good."

That began to change after Europe and Japan re-industrialized and became competitors, and worse when China shifted from a controlled economy to a mixed controlled-capitalist one becoming a major competitor all it's own.

There are all sorts of other economic factors (monetary policy, EPA and other regulatory efforts, immigration issues, automation, etc.) that also led to the current shaky economic situation shrinking the middle class.

Add to that all the social welfare program spending, requiring more taxes on those who earn over a certain amount (not just the "rich") and you get where we are today.

Things are not going to be made simpler by just "taxing the rich."

 

[Crovax]

You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years, you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

You'll declare there's always, always enough money for guns, but never enough for butter. For you guys it's truly purely about priorities, not about feasibility.

Military as a % of GDP has remained pretty flat

 

[Mach]

So you took all of the most expensive things you heard any liberals claim to want.
Tallied them all up, and then only used a simulated tax increase to argue that the left, is delusional?

Looks like you and the author of the article are projecting. Surely no one stupid enough to believe that article in any reasonable way reprints any real legislative goal. Beacause that would be dukusional.

But keep scaring people about the big bad socialists, as American business milks them all for 2x the healthcare costs of other above average OECD nations (and our military spending, and finance sector, etc). Keep telling us it’s liberals that are doing them wrong. ****ing hell.

 

[Crovax]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

rates not effective rates, big difference

Look at the 50s: The average tax revenue from GDP was 17.19% with a maximum of 19%

Lets look at average from the GWB presidency 17.07% with a maximum of 18.5% coming directly after the tax cuts

and what about Reaganonmics, he averaged 18.02% GDP tax revenue

 

[ttwtt78640]

You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years, you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

You'll declare there's always, always enough money for guns, but never enough for butter. For you guys it's truly purely about priorities, not about feasibility.

You make some valid points but this thread is not discussing the federal spending that we currently do not pay for via federal taxation (instead by running a continuous federal deficit and growing the national debt) but how additional federal spending would be funded.

Our current annual federal deficit (about $800B) is about 40% more than the total annual individual federal income tax (FIT) revenue currently generates. Getting even that much additional indivdual FIT revenue by raising only the upper FIT bracket rates has been avoided - IMHO because the donor class (the rich - which includes most congress critters) will simply not permit that to happen.

Step one is not to add even more federal spending - it is to raise FIT revenue enough to cover our current federal spending and to reduce the fast growing cost of servicing the national debt which has been growing for decades.

 

[Redress]

From that rabid right-wing propaganda outlet.....er... Daily Beast.





A point I've raised here regularly. If you want a European-style social welfare state, you have to pay for it like they do - by taxing the Bejezus out of the middle class.

Just a note: The plan your source references is from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not from democrats in general. In fact, the CPC membership is less than a third of democrats in congress. Also of note: republicans and conservatives have completely lost the right to complain about deficits, through there own actions.

 

[cpwill]

Just a note: The plan your source references is from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not from democrats in general. In fact, the CPC membership is less than a third of democrats in congress. Also of note: republicans and conservatives have completely lost the right to complain about deficits, through there own actions.

So, if I understand your response...

1. It's not fair to conflate a portion of Congressional Democrats with all Liberals

2. It is fair to conflate a portion of Congressional Republicans with all Conservatives.... And this is a good response to a point about math .

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[sangha]

Hmm... did we have massive federal income redistribution spending during the 50's?

Yes, we did.

It is amazing that folks who praise the federal taxation levels (as a percentage of GDP) in past decades completely ignore the federal spending levels (as a percentage of GDP) in those same decades.

Fed spending as a percentage of gdp is about the same as it was in the 50s. Just slightly lower

 

[<alt>doxygen]

rates not effective rates, big difference

Look at the 50s: The average tax revenue from GDP was 17.19% with a maximum of 19%

Lets look at average from the GWB presidency 17.07% with a maximum of 18.5% coming directly after the tax cuts

and what about Reaganonmics, he averaged 18.02% GDP tax revenue

The implication that tax cuts cause a rise in GDP that offsets the tax money lost as revenue is false. The GWB economy had, among other things, a massive housing bubble to feed off of, Reagan had a couple of bubbles and binge spending on the military.

B is not always caused by A.

 

[Redress]

So, if I understand your response...

1. It's not fair to conflate a portion of Congressional Democrats with all Liberals

2. It is fair to conflate a portion of Congressional Republicans with all Conservatives.... And this is a good response to a point about math .

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

How many republicans opposed the tax cuts that significantly reduced what revenue would be generated? 1 in the senate, due to health issues keeping him away. 12 voted against it in the house. Which part of "small minority" is the same as "vast majority"?

 

[cpwill]

How many republicans opposed the tax cuts that significantly reduced what revenue would be generated? 1 in the senate, due to health issues keeping him away. 12 voted against it in the house. Which part of "small minority" is the same as "vast majority"?

So, just to be clear, all liberals are conflatable with "congressional democrats"?


and, this changes math..... how?

 

[cpwill]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived.

If you had bothered to read the article cited, you would note that they point out that precisely eight people paid that top rate

It turns out that - as another poster has already demonstrated - what matters (for purposes of funding public programs) is not "what is the highest nominal marginal rate", but rather "how much are we getting in revenues".

 

[cpwill]

You hawks are oddly silent when the military budget is increased by hundreds of billions over just a few years

DOD spending has been cut, held steady, cut, partially increased, and is looking at a 5% cut this upcoming year (exception of SOCOM, who is still off fighting that silly war on terror thing everyone else has forgotten about).

Check defense spending as a % of GDP, and you will see the same story - we are hardly in a high water mark for defense spending.

you never ask how that could be paid for. When it comes to things like UHC which are CHEAPER than what we have now, you suddenly become fiscally conservative and ask stupid questions like "How ya gonna pay for that, comrade??"

Well,

1. I would point out that the "UHC is cheaper" argument relies on a few assumptions, such as "you get less care" and "we do less research and innovation", though I agree that the way we (broadly) pay for things now is an awful arrangement. More fully socialized countries use rationing to push down the costs of running with as socialized pre-payment scheme; a wiser system would utilize private-payments and allow insurance to function as insurance.... but thanks to our tax treatment of this particular benefit, we don't. Dumb, and as a result, prices rise.

2. That being said, when you want to shift a massive portion of the U.S. economy into government spending, then, yeah, "How are you going to pay for that" becomes sort of relevant.

3. DOD spending is (see above) pretty flat. It's not what's projected to continue climbing faster than GDP over the next couple of decades, wrecking our national fisc.

 

[cpwill]

There are a number of European countries with a decent welfare program that has similar or lower tax rates than the US.

I'd be interested in seeing your examples.

Alternatively, you guys could spend a lot less on the military and still have the biggest military spend in the world.

Which is irrelevant, since what matters for military impact is not "how much money did you spend", but rather "what capabilities do you have". The United States, for example, pays its soldiers a lot better than Russia, but still needs to be able to counter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe... which, for the U.S., involves a far harder projection-lift than it does for Russia. Ditto for China in the South China Sea, Iran in the Persian Gulf, etc.

If anything, large U.S. DOD spending has acted as a subsidy for much of Europe.

That being said, however, we could cut DOD spending to $0 and still not produce enough savings for the proposed programs.

Depends whether you want a compassionate country that helps it's people when in need, or if you want a country that ignores their needs. The former generally produces happier citizens and lower social divisions.

1. Whether or not a nation is compassionate is not determined by the extent to which the government exercises control over our lives and holds us down. More socialist countries actually tend to be LESS compassionate when measured in terms of actual compassion, vice government programs.

2. Government transfer programs do not seem to produce happier citizens. They instead seem to produce entitlement and anger.

 

[Mach]

1. Whether or not a nation is compassionate is not determined by the extent to which the government exercises control over our lives and holds us down. More socialist countries actually tend to be LESS compassionate when measured in terms of actual compassion, vice government programs.

That's absurd because you're essentially claiming government cannot be compassionate, setting us up for you know, a government that isn't compassionate.
Then acting like charity is the only valid form of compassion. It's bunk.

You're note even understanding what's going on at the high level.

When the ultra-wealthy are taxed more, they are not significantly "held down" in any meaningful way. They are still ultra-wealthy.
They are still immensely powerful, influence politics more, live a life of luxury. So they buy one yacht they will use 0.1% of the year, instead of 2? That's holding them down...vs watching people go bankrupt because of the cost of basic heatlhcare (or any number of plights of the less fortunate, even just middle class)? What?! Which one 'controls' a persons life more in a negative way, and by number of people? It's not even close.

2. Government transfer programs do not seem to produce happier citizens. They instead seem to produce entitlement and anger.

Based on what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Disagrees.
Northern Europe looks happier on all accounts. They seem to feel they have less corruption too...lucky them. We've got criminals running our campaigns, sucks to be us.

 

[Conservative]

Calling the left delusion with the tax cuts create jobs crowd. hysterical how right wingers have absolutely no shame, just continue to throw **** and hope it sticks

Look at the 50s, biggest middle class expansion, the rich had high tax rates. country thrived. When the rich have all the wealth, we get the great depression and the great recession and the **** country we have now where most of the country are barely getting by while the rich continue to stockpile wealth

Here is the reality you want to ignore, the Obama job creation!! As you continue to show actual results don't matter, perception and the lies from the left do

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level - Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time
Years: 2008 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8046 8796 9145 8908 9113 9024 8891 9029 8847 8979 9114 9098
2010 8530 8936 9233 9178 8845 8577 8500 8800 9246 8837 8873 8935
2011 8470 8464 8645 8652 8576 8427 8281 8788 9166 8657 8447 8171
2012 8305 8238 7775 7913 8101 8072 8082 7974 8671 8203 8166 7943
2013 8151 8178 7722 7964 7937 8103 8099 7816 7764 7936 7718 7827
2014 7302 7304 7451 7516 7260 7425 7400 7169 7007 7031 6885 6817
2015 6820 6693 6653 6622 6643 6386 6234 6411 6025 5807 6159 6027
2016 5960 6021 6099 6027 6491 5751 5898 5977 5893 5955 5719 5554
2017 5776 5670 5500 5309 5268 5264 5236 5209 5148 4880 4851 4915
2018 4989 5160 5019 4985 4948 4743 4567 4379 4642 4621

It does seem that total jobs is all that matters to the left not the part time vs. full time jobs which create tax revenue. This isn't the 50's and the Trump economy has blown the Obama malaise out of the water. Obama created 4.2 trillion GDP in 8 years, less than Bush did in 8 years including the recession years of 2008 and those numbers will be blown away as Trump has already generated 2 trillion in GDP growth in 2 years. You see, actual results also don't matter to radicals

 

[Conservative]

That's absurd because you're essentially claiming government cannot be compassionate, setting us up for you know, a government that isn't compassionate.
Then acting like charity is the only valid form of compassion. It's bunk.

You're note even understanding what's going on at the high level.

When the ultra-wealthy are taxed more, they are not significantly "held down" in any meaningful way. They are still ultra-wealthy.
They are still immensely powerful, influence politics more, live a life of luxury. So they buy one yacht they will use 0.1% of the year, instead of 2? That's holding them down...vs watching people go bankrupt because of the cost of basic heatlhcare (or any number of plights of the less fortunate, even just middle class)? What?! Which one 'controls' a persons life more in a negative way, and by number of people? It's not even close.


Based on what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Disagrees.
Northern Europe looks happier on all accounts. They seem to feel they have less corruption too...lucky them. We've got criminals running our campaigns, sucks to be us.

The grass is always greener on the other side until you get their. Want to pay European Taxes including their VAT taxes? Doesn't seem that Europeans are happier as you claim

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...atings-tower-above-embattled-european-leaders

Do you people ever admit when wrong?

 

[cpwill]

That's absurd because you're essentially claiming government cannot be compassionate

That doesn't strike me as too indefensible a claim at all. Government can't love you, hold you, provide you with emotional or spiritual warmth, or sacrifice of itself for others. Only individuals can do this. Government can affect transfer payments, which might be institutionalized by people who were acting out of compassion, but the government itself is merely offering money on one end, and coercion on the other.

Then acting like charity is the only valid form of compassion.

Whether or not someone is willing to give their own money is absolutely a more valid measurement of their compassion than whether or not they are willing to vote for government to take away someone else's money for the purpose of then giving it to a third party.

When the ultra-wealthy are taxed more, they are not significantly "held down" in any meaningful way.

You are incorrect, especially given how neat and malleable that definition of "ultra-wealthy" is. I have an uncle who's been pretty successful: no 4-year-degree, went and built up a construction company through blood, sweat, and 16 hour workdays, and whose business is now a multi-million dollar concern. He faces a combined tax rate of about 50%. If he didn't face that, he'd be growing his business faster, hiring more people, looking to grow in new areas; he'd also be increasing his consumption. He doesn't, because that money instead goes to the local, state, and federal governments.

Hike that rate up to 91% just at the federal level, as others in this thread (and elsewhere) have pushed for? 74%? Yeah, you're absolutely holding back growth.

For most, however, membership in that "ultra-wealthy" (as measured in income) strata is pretty ephemeral. Lots of small business owners get there when they sell their business, and that year's income makes them temporarily "ultra-wealthy". For them to lose a massive portion of that windfall they spent their lives working for is brutal.

They are still immensely powerful, influence politics more, live a life of luxury. So they buy one yacht they will use 0.1% of the year, instead of 2? That's holding them down...vs watching people go bankrupt because of the cost of basic heatlhcare (or any number of plights of the less fortunate, even just middle class)? What?! Which one 'controls' a persons life more in a negative way, and by number of people? It's not even close.

If you will bother to go back and read the article cited in the OP, you will notice that taxing the wealthy won't pay for those free healthcare programs you want. You have to tax the crap out of the middle class to raise the necessary revenue.

Based on what?

Agreeably observation.

 

[Kushinator]

I'm just waiting for stagflation, China to pop, bond bubbles, etc... to materialize. :lol: