To pay america's debt everybody sacrifice well not everybody?

[Neomalthusian]

Yes, I've already stated I got those two categories confused. However that does not change the fact that the uber rich pay a lower percentage of Federal tax revenue than do the middle class.

It changes how people interpret the facts. I could gather the 400 biggest drains on society that exist in this country and add together what they suck out of the system relative to what they paid in and say "SEE!? Look how unsustainable social safety net programs are!" It wouldn't be untrue, but it would be a case of misleading vividness. Which is what your argument in this thread has been.

Again, I understand you feel the capital gains tax should be raised. Have you read any analyses about what the impact of this would be? I'll look around for some arguments for and against.

 

[Catawba]

It changes how people interpret the facts. I could gather the 400 biggest drains on society that exist in this country and add together what they suck out of the system relative to what they paid in and say "SEE!? Look how unsustainable social safety net programs are!" It wouldn't be untrue, but it would be a case of misleading vividness. Which is what your argument in this thread has been.

Again, I understand you feel the capital gains tax should be raised. Have you read any analyses about what the impact of this would be? I'll look around for some arguments for and against.

If you wish to feel sorry for the rich who have gotten much richer while the middle class staganted that is your choice.

I side with the middle class in the class war that has been waged on them for the last 30 years! :sun

 

[TurtleDude]

It changes how people interpret the facts. I could gather the 400 biggest drains on society that exist in this country and add together what they suck out of the system relative to what they paid in and say "SEE!? Look how unsustainable social safety net programs are!" It wouldn't be untrue, but it would be a case of misleading vividness. Which is what your argument in this thread has been.

Again, I understand you feel the capital gains tax should be raised. Have you read any analyses about what the impact of this would be? I'll look around for some arguments for and against.

do you really think these people are motivated by a rational economic position? its outcome based envy.

The rich have too much money therefore we need to take more from them is what is going on

they never understand the long term impact of driving investment and the wealthy away

those who are fed by the golden geese seem to not understand such creatures have wings

 

[TurtleDude]

If you wish to feel sorry for the rich who have gotten much richer while the middle class staganted that is your choice.

I side with the middle class in the class war that has been waged on them for the last 30 years! :sun

enlighten us what would be going on economically if the rich were not getting richer?

that would mean that there was no return on investments

that stocks were not paying dividends

think about it

 

[Catawba]

gee I guess some people think that the only way to tax someone is income tax

smart people understand a consumption tax or the fair tax would tax people but not on income

The smart people have already figured out that the so called fair tax (a regressive tax system) would be an even further hardship on the middle class making under $200,000 while the wealthy making more than $200,000 would pay even less in taxes.

Snopes, among others have already pointed this out.

How do you think you will get the middle class to go along with paying more so you can pay less?

 

[Neomalthusian]

If you wish to feel sorry for the rich who have gotten much richer while the middle class staganted that is your choice.

I side with the middle class in the class war that has been waged on them for the last 30 years!

Bla bla bla. All this class war rhetoric accusing the other side of class war. One could go around and around.

Let's stay on topic and actually progress with it.

Capital Gains Tax Hike Unlikely to Increase Revenues | The Heritage Foundation

A general consensus exists that a higher capital gains tax rate would harm the economy, but at what point would the revenues lost due to slower economic growth exceed the revenues gained from the higher tax rate? How many jobs would be lost and how many wage gains would be missed to implement the President’s notion of tax "fairness”? Analysis by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s budget provides the basis to answer these questions: Only a slight reduction in economic growth will offset the revenue gained from raising the capital gains tax, producing little tax revenue on net. It is more likely to reduce total federal receipts.

 

[Catawba]

enlighten us what would be going on economically if the rich were not getting richer?

The rich, and the economy, did just fine when they paid four times what they pay now for the half century when we had a real progressive tax system in this country.

 

[TurtleDude]

The smart people have already figured out that the so called fair tax (a regressive tax system) would be an even further hardship on the middle class making under $200,000 while the wealthy making more than $200,000 would pay even less in taxes.

Snopes, among others have already pointed this out.

How do you think you will get the middle class to go along with paying more so you can pay less?

this gets old

you make a clearly wrong comment-such as saying that because I don't support an income tax I must support no taxes on the rich or claiming that the top 1% pay less of a tax rate than the middle class

you continue to make errors and lie even after you have been corrected-often by your own sources. so I mention that the fair tax or a consumption tax is a way to tax people rather than the income tax thus smashing one of your errors and what do you do in response. you start whining about why that tax wouldn't be good for you.

that is not a rebuttal of my point. and it does not cover up the fact that you were absolutely incorrect

of course the middle class thinks that the rich should pay more and more. and since they have more votes they will get there way-for a while until the system collapses

the middle class-as demonstrated by people like you-are addicts who want to keep smoking their dope and get mad when people tell them it cannot go on forever, there are not enough rich to support more and more spending on behalf of an indolent middle class

do the math

 

[TurtleDude]

The rich, and the economy, did just fine when they paid four times what they pay now for the half century when we had a real progressive tax system in this country.

geez another error

if the effective tax rate on the top one percent is 24 percent (AS YOUR ARTICLE CLAIMED LAST NIGHT) are you saying the rich were paying an effective rate of 96%

you ought to give it up catawba. you really don't understand these issues

you cannot tell the difference between high MARGINAL rates and EFFECTIVE rates

you confuse 400 richest tax payers with the 3 million in the top one percent

you confuse tax burden with marginal rates

 

[Missed AB]

The smart people have already figured out that the so called fair tax (a regressive tax system) would be an even further hardship on the middle class making under $200,000 while the wealthy making more than $200,000 would pay even less in taxes.

Snopes, among others have already pointed this out.

How do you think you will get the middle class to go along with paying more so you can pay less?

How about we all just make the flat tax of 66% on every dollar earned on every person in America which is what is required to balance the budget.

Clearly the issue you have not addressed in your own heart is that we do not need all these government programs. Less taxes means more money for everyone.

 

[Catawba]

geez another error

if the effective tax rate on the top one percent is 24 percent (AS YOUR ARTICLE CLAIMED LAST NIGHT) are you saying the rich were paying an effective rate of 96%

you ought to give it up catawba. you really don't understand these issues

you cannot tell the difference between high MARGINAL rates and EFFECTIVE rates

you confuse 400 richest tax payers with the 3 million in the top one percent

you confuse tax burden with marginal rates

If you think the rich payed a lower rate of taxes before Reagan, I am more than willing to go back to those rates! :sun

 

[Catawba]

Bla bla bla. All this class war rhetoric accusing the other side of class war. One could go around and around.

Let's stay on topic and actually progress with it.

Capital Gains Tax Hike Unlikely to Increase Revenues | The Heritage Foundation

You go with the politically biased Heritage Foundation if you wish. I'll go with the great majority of enconomists in this county that have said we need to raise taxes to increase our revenues.

 

[Catawba]

How about we all just make the flat tax of 66% on every dollar earned on every person in America which is what is required to balance the budget.

Clearly the issue you have not addressed in your own heart is that we do not need all these government programs. Less taxes means more money for everyone.

We have much wasted and unnecessary spending that needs to be cut, and we need to increase our revenues, that is if we are interested in reducing our deficit spending.

Cutting support of our seniors to provide yet more tax cuts for the wealthy does nothing to prevent deficit spending.

 

[Neomalthusian]

You go with the politically biased Heritage Foundation if you wish. I'll go with the great majority of enconomists in this county that have said we need to raise taxes to increase our revenues.

Of course I'll go with a politically biased source. I'm politically biased. You know this. But I'm demonstrating why I have a strong sense my political bias in this regard is right. Notice I didn't go with a garbage politically biased site like CNS News, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. I linked an article posted on Heritage written by a PhD against which, if you read it, you might have a hard time successfully arguing.

Hence why you've resorted to poisoning the well, followed by "the great majority of economists in this country have said..."

One more time now. You want to raise the capital gains tax. The article I posted asks some important questions about this, most notably that the immediate economic consequences of raising the capital gains tax might fairly easily offset any intended revenue gains. Do you intend to support why you think raising the capital gains tax is a good idea?

 

[Catawba]

Of course I'll go with a politically biased source. I'm politically biased. You know this. But I'm demonstrating why I have a strong sense my political bias in this regard is right. Notice I didn't go with a garbage politically biased site like CNS News, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. I linked an article posted on Heritage written by a PhD against which, if you read it, you might have a hard time successfully arguing.

Hence why you've resorted to poisoning the well, followed by "the great majority of economists in this country have said..."

One more time now. You want to raise the capital gains tax. The article I posted asks some important questions about this, most notably that the immediate economic consequences of raising the capital gains tax might fairly easily offset any intended revenue gains. Do you intend to support why you think raising the capital gains tax is a good idea?

I have no interest in what the politically biased Heritage foundation has to say about the economy. I choose to go with the recommendations of the majority of all economists right and left that say we need to raise taxes to increase our revenues. It is more logical to me. And, I have 30 years of experience with the failed experiment of cutting taxes to increase revenues. It has always resulted in a short term bubble followed by a recession.

Thanks, but no thanks! :sun

 

[haymarket]

geez another error

if the effective tax rate on the top one percent is 24 percent (AS YOUR ARTICLE CLAIMED LAST NIGHT) are you saying the rich were paying an effective rate of 96%

you ought to give it up catawba. you really don't understand these issues

you cannot tell the difference between high MARGINAL rates and EFFECTIVE rates

you confuse 400 richest tax payers with the 3 million in the top one percent

you confuse tax burden with marginal rates

Perhaps one major reason for this alleged confusion on MARGINAL rates and EFFECTIVE rates of income taxation is your inability to actually quantify what these are in terms of dollars and cents.

Turtle - you bring this up quite a bit and you NEVER EVER EVER provide any actual data to support that there was a difference and what (if any) that difference was in each income group. You have never done this despite many challenges to do so and you have never risen to or met any of those challenges.

So before this bogs down again in one pontification after another based solely on your belief system and ideology, provide that data for us. Show us how there was an actual real difference in those tax rates back in the Fifties or Sixties. Show us with actual hard verifiable data that you can back up what you constantly allege.

Our side has provided the IRS income tax rates for this period. Your side claims that those were only the marginal or official rates and in reality, the effective rate was much lower.

So prove it. Give us the data which demonstrates this.

We cannot have any sort of debate if we introduce an official law as proof of reality and the way things were, but then you come along and say it was not so but fail to give us the actual data, facts and figures which proves that it was not so.

If you are claiming that the official published income tax rates from the IRS in the Fifties and Sixties were NOT what people actually paid, the responsibility is solely and completely upon you to prove it with verifiable data.

Here are the official rates from the article on US Income tax rates from Wikipedia which comes from the IRS itself

Yr $10K 20K $60K $100K $250K
1930 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1932 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1934 11% 19% 37% 56% 58%
1936 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1938 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1940 14% 28% 51% 62% 68%
1942 38% 55% 75% 85% 88%
1944 41% 59% 81% 92% 94%
1946 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1950 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1962 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76%
1966 - 1976 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%
1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%

 

[TurtleDude]

Lets see

One of the two tax hikers cites an article that says those making between one million and five million pay an effective tax rate of 24%--I accept that for the sake of argument. Since the top 1% cut off is between a yearly income of 350 and 400K a year that means the vast vast majority of top one percent tax payers are under 5 million a year and their average effective tax rate is AT LEAST 24% (pay attention Haymarket-this is called a logical deduction based on facts your side has supplied).

Now your fellow traveler claimed that before Reagan, the tax burden on the TOP ONE PERCENT WAS FOUR TIMES HIGHER. now we know-from an article Catawba posted (the one that proved him a liar maybe the 7th time) admitted that the top one percent pay 39.5% of the Federal income tax burden

so using facts supplied by your side we KNOW that the top one percent carries almost 40% of the FIT burden NOW and the effective tax rate on the vast majority of the top one percent is about 24%. Since we can assume safely that those making between 375k to a million outnumber by many times those in the top 400 or even top 4000, (and Catawba's article was limited to those making 1 million to 5 million) we can conclude that the average person in the top 1% is paying about 24% or MORE in effective taxes

Now Catawba has also claimed that before Reagan the tax burden on the top one percent ("the rich") was FOUR TIMES HIGHER

now that would mean either

1) the effective tax rate on the rich was 4X24%=96% or

2) 4 x 40% of the federal income tax=160%

QED-Catawba was lying

the crap you cite is top marginal rates not effective rates

your citations fail to take into account

the percentage of those affected (remember our 35% rate hits anyone making over 200K in CURRENT valued dollars)
tax breaks "loopholes" etc

and how anyone could honestly justify someone else only keeping 9 cents on every next dollar they earn is beyond comprehension

what your side has done is

LIE

Misinterpret figures

deliberately confuse terms

draw silly conclusions (we still await your analysis as to why capital gains taxes should be hiked-and "getting the uber wealthy" doesn't cut it)

 

[oldreliable67]

Let's review and paraphrase a recent article by Louis Woodhill:

In 1955, the top individual income tax rate was 91% and the top capital gains tax rate was 25%. Under this incentive structure, the 400 most successful Americans earned income equal to 0.20% of GDP and contributed 0.59% of Federal revenues. In 2008, the top individual income tax rate was 35% and the top capital gains tax rate was 15%. Faced with these lower tax rates, the 400 most successful Americans earned income equal to 0.75% of GDP and provided 0.80% of Federal revenues.

Woodhill notes that a supply-sider might look at these numbers and say that the tax rate cuts produced the expected result: it caused the "top 400" to produce more income and pay more in taxes.

Let's look further: in FY1955, federal revenues were 16.5% of GDP. In FY2008, they were 17.5% of GDP. Conclusion: over this 53 year span, the top marginal rate went down significantly, as did the top capital gains rate, and revenues as a percent of GDP went up.

So what is the problem?

Between FY1955 and FY2008, federal revenues increased by 1.0% of GDP. But, federal spending increased 3.4% of GDP, resulting in the deficit increasing by 2.4% of GDP. Defense spending wasn't the problem, falling from 10.8% of GDP in '55 to 4.3% of GDP in '08.

Maybe it was this: Between '55 and '08, transfer payments, or "Payments to Individuals" went from 3.6% of GDP to 12.7% of GDP. Better known as the 'rise of the welfare state.'

The top 400 taxpayers are not the problem. The numbers show that they are paying more taxes and a greater share of total taxes than they were in your so-called 'good old days' of 91% marginal tax rates.

But wait! Here is a 'shoot the messenger' alert! The article paraphrased above is from Forbes, which some might say is a decidedly conservatively-oriented publication. Hence, the conclusions therein should be dismissed out of hand.

Unfortunately for those who would wish to do so, the supporting hard data is available in the IRS Statistics of Income.

Clearly, the priorities and resulting spending decisions set by successive administrations, regardless of party affiliation, have brought us to our current predicament. Even if you don't accept the legitimacy of the hard data-and granted that ideologically wed die-hards still will not and most likely never will-you must admit that without the increased tax revenues, we would be in even worse shape now.

 

[American]

I would say a group that makes 22% of the income and does not own all the wealth yet pays 40% of the income tax and almost all the wealth tax -aka the death tax-aka the estate tax-is certainly sacrificing given that for all that tax they pay they get absolutely no additional benefits from the government

on the other hand, we have 47% of the population that pays NONE of the federal income tax and none of the death tax yet they get all the benefits of citizenship as the rich do and they are often the people who vote for politicians who promise higher taxes on the rich.

its time they sacrifice

So 47% of the population is protected by the finest military in the world, paid for by the other 53%? So 47% of the population have their rights protected by a govt that is funded by the other 53%? So 47% of the population get an education paid for by the other 53%?

 

[haymarket]

I read posts 917 from Turtle and 918 from Oldreliable. Sadly, neither provided the actual factual information which can be verified substantiating the claim that while marginal tax rates were indeed much higher in the Fifties and Sixties, the effective rates were significantly lower. Neither of these posts provide that information. Instead both use convoluted explanations based on assumptions that both make.

Please forget about the smoke and mirrors routine. Please forget about your common sense and logic - neither of which actually prove to be either. All that is debatable anyway.

What is NOT debatable is hard and verifiable data. Please provide that or have the intellectual integrity to quit makign statements of fact that you cannot and have not been able to substantiate withe factual verifiable data.

 

[haymarket]

So 47% of the population is protected by the finest military in the world, paid for by the other 53%? So 47% of the population have their rights protected by a govt that is funded by the other 53%? So 47% of the population get an education paid for by the other 53%?

Could you explain for us how if education is a state and local respobnsibility and is funded by state and local funds, how you could have possibly made this jump in illogic connecting the 47% not paying income taxes to suddendly not paying for education?

 

[oldreliable67]

and 918 from Oldreliable. Sadly, neither provided the actual factual information which can be verified substantiating the claim that while marginal tax rates were indeed much higher in the Fifties and Sixties, the effective rates were significantly lower.

That was clearly and unequivocally not the intent of my post. The intent was to show the impact of taxes and the change in tax rates and spending as a % of GDP over a long time span, and the main source of the resulting deficit. A link is provided to the hard data should you choose to use it.

The data presented clearly show that the root of our current problem is habitual spending beyond our means by successive administrations, regardless of party affiliation, despite tax revenues increasing relative to GDP. In the interval examined, there were only two attempts to rectify the situation: one by Reagan and one by Clinton. Both ultimately failed due to the subsequent policies and administrations reverting to type.

Your attempt to ascribe an intent other that clearly intended is disingenuous, appearing to be an attempt to conflate my post with your other ongoing debate.

 

[haymarket]

Thank you for correcting that misimpression. I am sorry for including you in my post. So now we are down to the Turtle post and the continued challenge to present the data to back up his allegations about effective tax rates in the Fifties and Sixties

 

[Catawba]

"The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
- Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod is adamant on one of the key economic issues of our day: 'Tax cuts don't pay for themselves! Period!'

Hardly any economist would disagree. This is true for Republicans as well as Democrats. It is also true regardless of whether they describe themselves as NeoClassical, New Classical, Rational Expectations, Monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian or New Institutional economists. "
Economists agree:  Tax cuts don't create revenue


"If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money."

"If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME

"When one takes a longer view of the data, evidence of a positive effect of tax cuts on economic growth disappears. Michael Ettlinger, a colleague of mine at the Center for American Progress, has found that economic growth was greater following the tax increases of 1993 than after the tax cuts in 1981 and 2001. The highest rates of economic growth occurred between 1933 and 1973 when marginal income tax rates were at their highest. High growth occurred at the same time as high tax rates."
The Broader Market · No, Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves

 

[Neomalthusian]

I have no interest in what the politically biased Heritage foundation has to say about the economy.

Then you have no interest in what the consequences of raising taxes would be. You're poisoning the well, effectively plugging your ears and singing "LA LA LA."

I choose to go with the recommendations of the majority of all economists right and left that say we need to raise taxes to increase our revenues.

The article comprehensively calls into question to what degree that can be done before offsetting any revenue gains. If you'd bother to read it you'd notice the author cetainly appears to consider it objectively.

The incessant bickering for I don't know how many pages of this thread was about the richest millionth of Americans whose effective tax rate is lower because of low capital gains taxes. So I inferred you want that raised. Do you?