• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is the new tax structure

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
distrobution.jpg
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.
 
View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

Are you sure this is solely due to tax structure. At the state level,such as the one I live in the tax structure have become much more burdensome for high income individuals. Many hard working,low paid citizens pay little or no tax.
 
View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

What? I don't see in your OP a representation of any tax structure.
 
View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

WTF does your chart have to do with "tax structure"?
 
Are you sure this is solely due to tax structure. At the state level,such as the one I live in the tax structure have become much more burdensome for high income individuals. Many hard working,low paid citizens pay little or no tax.
Try to sneak this right wing bull**** through, The people who don't pay taxes are because of tax cut that everyone receives, wealthy or poor. Apples and apples- By the way what state are you talking about.
 
Yup a tax structure that will turn around the distribution of family income 180 deg. from the chart below and to be fair we will do it for the same 55 years that the wealthy were handed all the new profit in this country.
 
View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

What? I don't see in your OP a representation of any tax structure.

It is no crime to be ignorant of [taxation], which is, after all, a specialized discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on [tax topics] while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard (adapted)


Red:
  1. No, I wasn't at all joking.
  2. The image just above is not, as you and everyone else can see, is not the image you put in your OP.
  3. I think you haven't an iota of portfolio to discuss the topic for which you've created this thread. Worse, you appear to have an opinion on a matter of great import and about which you yet understand and know precious little.

    A tax structure consists of several elements, tax rates being but one of them. Even with the second image's inclusion, you still have neither presented (1) an extant or prior tax structure nor (2) a tax structure of your own concoction.
    • The topmost tax rate, which is what your second image depicts over time, is but one of the many tax rates found in the tax code.
 
It is no crime to be ignorant of [taxation], which is, after all, a specialized discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on [tax topics] while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard (adapted)


Red:
  1. No, I wasn't at all joking.
  2. The image just above is not, as you and everyone else can see, is not the image you put in your OP.
  3. I think you haven't an iota of portfolio to discuss the topic for which you've created this thread. Worse, you appear to have an opinion on a matter of great import and about which you yet understand and know precious little.

    A tax structure consists of several elements, tax rates being but one of them. Even with the second image's inclusion, you still have neither presented (1) an extant or prior tax structure nor (2) a tax structure of your own concoction.
    • The topmost tax rate, which is what your second image depicts over time, is but one of the many tax rates found in the tax code.
Ding dong get a life.
 
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.
Let us expand those numbers a bit shall we: Sorry but my program grabbed 2014 census data:

90th percentile [$162,019]: Mean number of earners 2.02( $80,207 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 39.9% : Net: $48,204/earner. Mean size of household: 3.13 ($31,109 per person)

50th percentile [$57,065]: Mean number of earners 1.41 ($40,471 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 28.1%) Net: $29,098/earner. Mean size of household 2.56 ($16,026 per person)

12th percentile [$17,338]: Mean number of earners 0.54 ($32,107 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 12.6%) Net: $28,061/earner. Mean size of household 1.90 ($14,768 per person).

That means a 90th income earner takes home about 65% more than 50th & 72% more than a 12th and has 94% & 110% more spending power per person.

A normal bell curve would put these well within a normalized expectations.
 
View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

What? I don't see in your OP a representation of any tax structure.

You must be joking
View attachment 67248403

It is no crime to be ignorant of [taxation], which is, after all, a specialized discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on [tax topics] while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard (adapted)


Red:
  1. No, I wasn't at all joking.
  2. The image just above is not, as you and everyone else can see, is not the image you put in your OP.
  3. I think you haven't an iota of portfolio to discuss the topic for which you've created this thread. Worse, you appear to have an opinion on a matter of great import and about which you yet understand and know precious little.

    A tax structure consists of several elements, tax rates being but one of them. Even with the second image's inclusion, you still have neither presented (1) an extant or prior tax structure nor (2) a tax structure of your own concoction.
    • The topmost tax rate, which is what your second image depicts over time, is but one of the many tax rates found in the tax code.


Ding dong get a life.
Blue:
Ding dong, refrain from entreating for discourse on matters about which you are naive.
 
Eliminate the Payroll Tax Cap to Cover All Earnings
Repeal the 2017 tax cut for the wealthy,
repeal 90% of the tax cut for the wealthy from 1981
tax capital gains as income which of course it is.
Enact the buffet rule
limit mortgage interest and charitable deduction.
reduce retirement account contribution limits
replace Cadillac tax with a cap on the exclusion.
repeal corporate tax breaks
only allow deduction of minimum cost of inventory
eliminate tax cap for social security to include all earnings
reduce farm subsidies.
 
Try to sneak this right wing bull**** through, The people who don't pay taxes are because of tax cut that everyone receives, wealthy or poor. Apples and apples- By the way what state are you talking about.

I have no problem with a progressive tax system nor have I ever been spoken about as a right winger by anyone who knows me in real life. not someone hiding behind a computer. Just have a problem with untrue statements. You must know that there were provisions lowering taxes on the working poor. It should not be hard to complain about the lowering of the highest tax bracket by misstating reality.
 
I have no problem with a progressive tax system nor have I ever been spoken about as a right winger by anyone who knows me in real life. not someone hiding behind a computer. Just have a problem with untrue statements. You must know that there were provisions lowering taxes on the working poor. It should not be hard to complain about the lowering of the highest tax bracket by misstating reality.
misstating reality?
 
Let us expand those numbers a bit shall we: Sorry but my program grabbed 2014 census data:

90th percentile [$162,019]: Mean number of earners 2.02( $80,207 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 39.9% : Net: $48,204/earner. Mean size of household: 3.13 ($31,109 per person)

50th percentile [$57,065]: Mean number of earners 1.41 ($40,471 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 28.1%) Net: $29,098/earner. Mean size of household 2.56 ($16,026 per person)

12th percentile [$17,338]: Mean number of earners 0.54 ($32,107 avg marginal tax rate 2018: 12.6%) Net: $28,061/earner. Mean size of household 1.90 ($14,768 per person).

That means a 90th income earner takes home about 65% more than 50th & 72% more than a 12th and has 94% & 110% more spending power per person.

A normal bell curve would put these well within a normalized expectations.
point?
 
We expect income, unadjusted, to have some degree of inequality so how does that curve compare to a standard bell curve.

We are looking at the tails of the middle class(offically in 2014: 35th - 80th): 68% - 200% of the mean.

We don't want poor people. So the fact the 12th is corrected net and by family size to only 8% of the mean income means we are doing pretty well at keeping poverty in range of the middle class.

The fact at the 90th we still only 65% of the 12th in income is also good thing. It means you still have to pass the third standard deviation to enter the lower-end and higher-end, expected outliers.

Do you get what a country with high inequality looks like? Expanding the numbers shows we have a healthy middle class but it somewhat distorted if you don't account for tax, family size and number of income earners.

Isn't your point the "rich" are getting all the perks? My point is you goal is flawed.
 
Last edited:
*note*
I was trying out a new program and caught an error...

The income formula for the 12th percentile has a sub 1 earner, so it magnified their income instead of calculated the subsidy.

Net: $15,205 / earner
Subsidy: ~$7,975
Per person net: $8,002 / household member

So it's 50% less than the mean rather than 8%.
 
Last edited:
We expect income, unadjusted, to have some degree of inequality so how does that curve compare to a standard bell curve.

We are looking at the tails of the middle class(offically in 2014: 35th - 80th): 68% - 200% of the mean.

We don't want poor people. So the fact the 12th is corrected net and by family size to only 8% of the mean income means we are doing pretty well at keeping poverty in range of the middle class.

The fact at the 90th we still only 65% of the 12th in income is also good thing. It means you still have to pass the third standard deviation to enter the lower-end and higher-end, expected outliers.

Do you get what a country with high inequality looks like? Expanding the numbers shows we have a healthy middle class but it somewhat distorted if you don't account for tax, family size and number of income earners.

Isn't your point the "rich" are getting all the perks? My point is you goal is flawed.
but the problem is your just wrong
middleclassshare.jpg
 
but the problem is your just wrong
View attachment 67248417
The problem with % alone is we are a far richer country. You want to compare those dollar for dollar?
My favourite is the implication Sweden has a middle class equality problem compared to Brizil or China.
 
The problem with % alone is we are a far richer country. You want to compare those dollar for dollar?
My favourite is the implication Sweden has a middle class equality problem compared to Brizil or China.
Bull, there standard of living and the devision of income is 100% relative to each other. Doesn't matter what the numbers are it's those number within that economy.
 
Yup a tax structure that will turn around the distribution of family income 180 deg. from the chart below and to be fair we will do it for the same 55 years that the wealthy were handed all the new profit in this country.

where do you come up with this crap that the wealthy were"handed" all the new profit? don't like it-start your own business
 
Bull, there standard of living and the devision of income is 100% relative to each other. Doesn't matter what the numbers are it's those number within that economy.
The US is the world leader in millionaires and billionaires pulling in a larger % of the total world wealth than comparables. When number depend on the total, it very much affects the distribution. You think everyone deserves a peice to the point we are all poorer?

Dollar for dollar in spending per citizen, if the US even just spent as much as Canada they would save money even if you account for milltary. Lets not even get started with Spain or Mexico. Your suggestions raises taxes on the middle and lower class(lowing their living standards), reduce public funding and makes everyone poorer.

It matters our middle class is healthy, income mobility strong and it bad to disquise that when you don’t account higher world income, multiple earners, current income subsidies and household size etc. Especially to push policies prven time and time again to increase equality by making everyone poorer hence keeping everything more flat.
 
The US is the world leader in millionaires and billionaires pulling in a larger % of the total world wealth than comparables. When number depend on the total, it very much affects the distribution. You think everyone deserves a peice to the point we are all poorer?

Dollar for dollar in spending per citizen, if the US even just spent as much as Canada they would save money even if you account for milltary. Lets not even get started with Spain or Mexico. Your suggestions raises taxes on the middle and lower class(lowing their living standards), reduce public funding and makes everyone poorer.

It matters our middle class is healthy, income mobility strong and it bad to disquise that when you don’t account higher world income, multiple earners, current income subsidies and household size etc. Especially to push policies prven time and time again to increase equality by making everyone poorer hence keeping everything more flat.
Each economic is all dictated by the standard of living within the perimeters of the separate economies. You said this countries middle class is in good shape and I showed you a chart saying that it is the worst of the top 21 economies. So now your trying to sell the idea that the middle class has the same perimeters of dollar amounts to be in the middle class for all economies,and I'm simply saying you are wrong.
 
The US is the world leader in millionaires and billionaires pulling in a larger % of the total world wealth than comparables. When number depend on the total, it very much affects the distribution. You think everyone deserves a peice to the point we are all poorer?

Dollar for dollar in spending per citizen, if the US even just spent as much as Canada they would save money even if you account for milltary. Lets not even get started with Spain or Mexico. Your suggestions raises taxes on the middle and lower class(lowing their living standards), reduce public funding and makes everyone poorer.

It matters our middle class is healthy, income mobility strong and it bad to disquise that when you don’t account higher world income, multiple earners, current income subsidies and household size etc. Especially to push policies prven time and time again to increase equality by making everyone poorer hence keeping everything more flat.
The last thing I would recommend as you suggest I'm doing , is raise taxes on the middle class and poor. Tell me what this even means and how I suggested doing it "You think everyone deserves a peice to the point we are all poorer?" You seem to be responding to someones else's comment , or just made up stuff I said.
 
The last thing I would recommend as you suggest I'm doing , is raise taxes on the middle class and poor. Tell me what this even means and how I suggested doing it "You think everyone deserves a peice to the point we are all poorer?" You seem to be responding to someones else's comment , or just made up stuff I said.
Well you see, the cost of government isn't proportional to GDP. It's all about gross dollars per citizen and %s how that tax burden will fall. Right now the marginal tax for those top income earners pay is 26-37%. You're suggesting we should try to push that up, yes? That number restricts income mobility into these outliers, less income is less wealth accumlation, pushing more people into the middle this can be seen in case after case. So I hope we agree there, yes?

Those high end income outliers even at lower % pay a lot of the gross. If those reduce the burden shifts more onto the middle/lower end, which requires higher tax rates as they have less income. For example in 2018, fed, state and local spend ~7.12 Trillion or $55,805 / household. The majority households could not afford their public share hence progressive taxation[a luxury of healthy top end income mobility with a healthy middle].

Median being in 2017: $61,372 per household $31,786 per capita. That puts the top end of the middle class at $122,744. You must get the current rate would have to raise if you reduce those at the top to a range of $47,372-$122,744. Which is even more distorted when you take into account these are gross income dollars not net and not taking into account demographic factos.

Maybe you think, the same amount of income would come in absent the top end. That though is a proven falsehood. Foreign capital enters via the 0.1% as they have investment capacity to be overseas and patriate that income.As to your chart which suggests Sweden has a less healthy middle class than Brazil or Mexico. It is obviously is too superficial to be meaningful.

What do I mean?

Let's look, how demographics compare between a $200,000+ income household to a $20,000-$25,000 household, shall we:

$200,000+: 6% rural, 51% from lower cost living areas(south/midwest); 6% single person households; 14% seniors. Two earners+: 77%. Work full-time: 80%. University educated: 76%.

$20,000-25,000: 17% rural, 64% from lower cost living area(south/midwest); 49% single households, 40% seniors. Two earners: 8%. Work full-time: 31%. University educated: 17%.

You just not comparing apples to apples here assuming that those in $20,000-25,000 are going to be magically transported to higher brackets if you higher the taxation at the top to the point of being punative to incme mobility about 300% of the mean [hughy long rule].
 
Back
Top Bottom