Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

In the 50s, 60s the highest earners over $100,000 paid 91% in taxes. Currently they pay 35%, so for every dollar earned at the top bracket, they keep 65 cents as opposed to 9, just half a century ago.

But.... they didn't. They didn't back then, nor today.

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 1—Winter 2007—Pages 3–24
How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax
System? A Historical and International
Perspective



The average tax rate paid by the highest income bracket, was only 31%.

This is something that is so obvious, and yet people never seem to grasp it.

You can't change how much people actually pay in tax.... only the tax rates.

But people easily, and routinely avoid tax rates. If the rate goes too high, people hide their money.

The Grumpy Economist: How to lie with statistics


The raw amount of income collected by tax RATES, is fairly consistent over time. It doesn't change much, regardless of what rates are imposed.



Are you telling me, that if we canceled everything, but national defense, justice, and law enforcement, that we would still be in debt?

The tax code has been changed and modified numerous times throughout history, and never once, under any system, has there been money for the programs we are blowing money on today. Never.

The same has been true of other countries. They raise taxes and capital leaves. There has never been a time at any point in the history of the human race, where a government has taxed rich people, and provided for the needs of all the poor.



Chevron didn't screw over Ecuador or anyone else. You don't know the history of that argument, and the counter evidence.

It takes a self-avowed genius to not see the horrific ramifications of this. When you are borrowing money to pay off creditors (some of whom are the same person/entity), there is something wrong. It means you can never pay them off, a perpetual debtor--the best kind of human according to our morally bankrupt system--though written throughout history and religious texts, debt forgiveness has been central to development of society. Today this is unthinkable and that is a crime.

There have been people like you, talking about the 'horrific ramifications' all the way back to the founding of this country, and by the way the founding of other countries.

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

Yes, we see the 'unthinkable horrific ramifications', and I'm shaking in my seat, in total fear even as I type.

Look... You have some points to be made, I will most certainly grant you that. But seriously, this drama queen super-star act, is a bit over the top... don't you think?

You are right -- almost.

The fact is the present 35% tax rate is substantially hollowed by sufficient loopholes and "write-off" provisions to render it virtually non-existent if the well-connected, Princeton-educated, lawyer-accountants who serve the likes of Jamie Dimon, Sheldon Adelson, et. al., choose to reference them all. But the simple fact is the 91% rate was not equipped with such an abundance of intricately constructed hiding places. As a result of this confiscatory level of taxation on the super-rich of the era, FDR was able to finance his WPA and CCC make-work programs, lifting my own father and millions of other willing workers from the depth of Depression-induced poverty, thereby stimulating a totally stagnant economy.

Briefly stated, what contemporary America needs is another 91% tax rate on the rich -- with a diligently enforced minimum of allowable deductions. In other words, we need to start using force against these greedy bastards in the interest of preserving the America we have known and had cause to love.

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation
In 1931, the top marginal rate was 25% of $100,000 and over.

Historical Tables | The White House
In 1931, the total Federal revenue was $3.1 Billion.

Herbert Hoover is who actually drove up tax rates in 1932.
In 1932, the those earning only $38K, had to pay 25%, and those earning $100K had to pay 56%, with the top marginal rate of 63% went to those earning $1 Million.

In 1932, Federal revenue fell to $1.9 Billion, and stayed at $1.9 Billion for 1933.

Those tax rates, stay that way until 1936, when FDR increased taxes on everyone.
The 25% bracket, is now for people earning only $32K
The tax rate of 62%, is now for people earning only $100K
The tax rate of 77% is now for people earning $1 Million.
And a tax rate of 79% is levied against those earning $5 Million.

For all of this increases in taxes, the Federal revenue, went from $3.6 Billion in '35 to $3.9 Billion in '36. A mere $300 million dollar increase.
In reference, 1934, the revenue was $2.9 Billion, where 1935 was a $700 Million dollar increase.

Not to mention that 1936 ended up being a recession year. Apparently taking money out of the hands of buyers and sellers..... hurts the economy.

But even more ironic, is that the top marginal rate of 79%, and later 91%, actually didn't effect very many people.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Fear-American-Depression-1929-1945/dp/0195144031]Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (Oxford History of the United States): David M. Kennedy: 9780195144031: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Pages 276 and 277.

The final piece of the Second New Deal was a tax reform bill that unleashed a largely symbolic attack upon the wealthy. Admitting in private that the "Wealth Tax" of 1935 was aimed at "stealing Huey Long's thunder," Roosevelt boosted the top marginal tax rate for those earning more than $5 million to a staggering 79%. Considering, however, that this new tax bracket was populated by exactly one person—John D. Rockefeller—the new tax rate had little real impact on redistributing wealth from the rich few to the poor many. One congressman accurately described the tax as "a hell raiser, not a revenue raiser."

More than 95% of American families continued to pay no federal income tax whatsoever, and even taxpayers at the 99th percentile of the income distribution faced tax rates of only 5%. Still, Roosevelt's supposed "soak the rich" plan had its desired political effect; Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement was pre-empted, FDR's status as a hero to the working class was cemented

Only one single individual in the entire country was even effected by the tax *RATE* of 79%. The entire thing was an extremely effective duping of the public, into thinking that FDR was "soaking the rich". All these years, and all your family, were played the fool, and you fell for it completely.

The real tax revenue gains came from Social Security, which came into effect in 1937.
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
With the 1% tax nailing every single poor, and middle class person in the country, the revenue went from the $3.9 Billion in '36 to the $5.3 Billion in '37. That $1.4 Billion increase, was far greater than the mere $300 Million from the 79% tax rate that only affected one individual in the whole country.

Meanwhile, the real effective tax rate, for even the 99 percentile, was still only 5%. Not the 91% you claim. Not even close. So drastically off are you, it's laughable.

And further, that increase in tax revenue, did nothing to pay for all of FDRs programs. FDR paid for all his government spending programs, the same way modern Democraps have been paying them today.... by borrowing.

In fact, before 1932, the last time we had a Billion dollar deficit, was 1919. We had a budget surplus all the way until 1931. In 1932, when we increase those taxes I outlined above, our deficit went to $2 Billion plus, and remind that high, until 1947. Far from providing extra cash, high tax rates ushered in 15 years of multi-Billion dollar deficits.

And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy. In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

If anything, those programs hindered us getting out of the great depression.

Bottom line is this...

Super high tax rates didn't bring in tons of revenue back then. Nor at any other time. Nor will they today. A tax "rate"... is just that. It's rate. You can set the rate, but you can't force people to pay it. They can move their money somewhere else. Just like Rockefeller did in the 1930s.

 

[gnarlylove]

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.

Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.

Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.

 

[KNB]

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.

Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.

Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.

But poor people have refrigerators. How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor

 

[gnarlylove]

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.

 

[bripat9643]

Along with a new "One Strike Law" for those inclined to cheat on their taxes, whereby those convicted of tax evasion will face a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years to life with the understanding convicted tax cheats will serve 25 years before becoming eligible for their first parole hearing.

People convicted of First Degree Murder have been sentenced to less time than that. You really have to be kidding. No one even considers cheating on your taxes to be a real crime. I say the more people that cheat the better. When people no longer respect this tyrannical law, then it will die.

Can you imagine the SQUEALS from Wall Street and Hollywood? The only reason the rich can avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the US is they OWN both major political parties; that could change in a single news cycle if tens of millions of US voters ever stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for their House Representatives and US Senators.

The term "fair share" is meaningless bullshit. It only indicates the you envy the people who supposedly don't pay it. However, income tax evasion and income tax avoidance are two separate things. You don't seem to understand the distinction.

Tell me if you think Harvard is paying its fair share of taxes?

"However, unlike most of us, Harvard avoids one big expense. It pays no significant taxes: not to Uncle Sam, nor to the State of Massachusetts, nor to the cities of Cambridge and Boston where most of its real estate sits.

"Any net operating income earned by Harvard is exempt from federal and state income taxes.

"Likewise, Harvard is exempt from Massachusetts' sales tax.

"In that way, Harvard is like other tax-exempt institutions (churches, charities, and schools).

"Harvard, however, is much richer than most of them.

"Even better -- for Harvard -- is the fact that laws covering Cambridge and Boston exempt Harvard's lands and buildings from property taxes. Harvard thus evades paying those cities the many tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes it would otherwise have to pay if it had not long ago arranged those legal exemptions.

"In contrast, middle and lower income owners of land, homes and cars in those cities must pay property taxes on them.

"Indeed, they all pay more precisely because Harvard does not pay.

"When Harvard utilizes the roads around the campus, calls upon local fire or police services, benefits from the public school educations provided to Harvard staff members, etc., local non-exempt taxpayers must pay for those services because Harvard does not pay the taxes to support those services.

"In effect, Harvard obtains free government services for which the rest of us pay."

Harvard's Finances: A Tale of Two Countries | Professor Richard D. Wolff

I think everyone's "fair share" of income taxes is zero. So, yes, I think Harvard is paying its fair share. I don't share your belief that people exist to be plundered by their government.

 

[bripat9643]

Instead, our evil capitalist profit driven money and banks system, has resulted in the most wealthy, most advanced nation, where the poorest of our people have a higher standard of living than the 90% of the world.

The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.

Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.

Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.

But poor people have refrigerators. How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor

Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.

 

[bripat9643]

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.

The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity. So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.

 

[KNB]

The poorest do not have it well-off by any measure. Please inform me, as I've lived among and as the poorest. What you say is vacuous.

Real wages have declined since the early 70s. In 1972 adjusted for inflation, wages per week were $341.73. By 1992 they had fallen to just $266.46. In 2012, compared to 72, real wages had fallen by 14%, to $294.83. What this means is the last generation will be considered the most successful generation. Where the fathers and mothers can no longer inform their child, truthfully, that they will do better than them. This reflects on society more and more as adult aged sons and daughters are living with their parents. This causes tension especially in situations where the children have children.

Is this what you mean by a "standard of living" that's so wealthy, where the child will not do as well as their parents? Ya know, the whole point about America.

But poor people have refrigerators. How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor

Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.

And if the financial gap between the .001% and the poor in the US is so great, then that would make the gap between the .001% and the poor in Gambia or Rwanda even more atrocious.

Why do you defend the greed of the rich? They won't defend you.

 

[KNB]

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.

The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity. So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.

Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.

 

[bripat9643]

But poor people have refrigerators. How can they be poor if they have refrigerators?
https://archive.org/details/FoxNews-AmericasPoor

Compared to the poor in Gambia or Rawanda, they are fabulously wealthy.

And if the financial gap between the .001% and the poor in the US is so great, then that would make the gap between the .001% and the poor in Gambia or Rwanda even more atrocious.

Why do you defend the greed of the rich? They won't defend you.

Why do you think having money needs to be defended? Is it a crime to have money? Did Bill Gates steal his fortune from anyone?

Please explain why the simple fact of having money is somehow criminal.

 

[bripat9643]

Something like 99.3% huh? Cool. Does having a fridge mean you have food in it? Do you think fridges come with lifetime supply of food? The poorest don't have homes to have fridges in, so you need to make that distinction.

The biggest health problem among the poor is obesity. So it appears that having food in their refrigerators is not one of their major problems.

Or it's because processed GMO pink slime costs less to produce than healthy food, and since their wages aren't going up, and their hours are being cut back so that multi-billion dollar corporations can save money on health insurance coverage, and the price of gas keeps going up, and their food stamps are being cut, it might be difficult for a struggling family to afford healthy meals.

Healthy food isn't expensive. It's cheap. You can buy a 10 lb. bag of rice for about $2.50. That will last a family of four all week. A while chicken friar is about $0.50 / lb. You can buy fresh carrots or string beans very cheap. With the above ingredients you can prepare a healthy filling nutritious dinner for four people for around $5.00.

Unhealthy junk food, on the other hand, is expensive. Where do you find "pink slime?" In McDonald's hamburgers. Eating fast food all the time is a great way to spend a lot of money on food. Kids get fat because they sit in front of the TV or the computer all day stuffing themselves with Cheetos and soda pop. That kind of food is expensive, not cheap.

The number of people on food stamps is at an all time high. They need to be cut back before this country goes bankrupt.

 

[KNB]

Actually, pink slime was estimated to be in 70% of ground beef sold nationwide at supermarkets.
Is Pink Slime in the Beef at Your Grocery Store? - ABC News

And remember that deep-fried Southern red states are the fattest and take the most Federal money, but as you can see, every American state has an obesity problem with nearly 20% in every state. I believe Colorado has gone back down into the 15-19% range.

Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, pink slime was estimated to be in 70% of ground beef sold nationwide at supermarkets.
Is Pink Slime in the Beef at Your Grocery Store? - ABC News

And remember that deep-fried Southern red states are the fattest and take the most Federal money, but as you can see, every American state has an obesity problem with nearly 20% in every state. I believe Colorado has gone back down into the 15-19% range.

Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Back to the old "Red State/Blue State" canard, eh? Whenever a libturd does that, it's because he has no facts or logic to support his claims. You failed to proved that poor people can't get enough food to eat. In fact, you proved precisely the opposite.

FAIL.

 

[Mustang]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

 

[gnarlylove]

Healthy food isn't expensive. It's cheap. You can buy a 10 lb. bag of rice for about $2.50. That will last a family of four all week. A while chicken friar is about $0.50 / lb.

This is all very true. But the important consideration is how are the consumers reached? Americans aren't told to eat what's healthy-: they are generally informed to pick products that have low-fat, no fat, "natural" "no added sugar." But when you read the label, these supposedly healthy products are very very bad. I'd know since I'm a diet consultant and I live near Huntington WV, thee fattest city in America. Fast food is a health epidemic in my region, but few even know how to prepare healthy food (greens, vegetables, produce).

Really healthy food is not in meat and rice alone. Plus all meats unless otherwise noted are highly problematic with health, but since people eat it daily they don't notice what its like not to (I personally eat meat but couple times a week). Those chickens are loaded with hormones that can fuck with the endocrine system along with all milk based products being laced with rbht.

Unhealthy junk food, on the other hand, is expensive.

Total lie. Unless your going for a 2 pound bag of M and Ms, nothing exceeds 2 bucks for repeated sessions of indulgence that becomes the norm. Sugar is the undercurrent that consistently drags Americans into a bad diet--or their utter resistance to eating in general because nothing they encounter or know is healthy.

Kids get fat because they sit in front of the TV or the computer all day stuffing themselves with Cheetos and soda pop. That kind of food is expensive, not cheap.

Again, your definition of cheap and expensive is extremely shifty. 3 dollar rice is cheap. 3 dollar pop and chips is expensive. Totally untenable.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy. In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

[...]

I was born in 1936. According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans. And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation. So believe whomever you choose to.

So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth. It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression. My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and for good reason.

 

[MikeK]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

 

[bripat9643]

Mike,

1. Why 20M specifically? Is that what you think the top would also agree to?

[...]

It's a figure I settled on when contemplating the first steps in what I believe to be the way to give America back to the working class. The figure is arbitrary and is subject to debate.

I believe a $20,000,000 maximum assets accumulation level is in line with the productivity potential of this Nation. It is sufficient to motivate industry and commerce, allowing accumulation of substantial wealth while not enough to enable a level of wealth which translates to political power.

Twenty million dollars would enable one to own two fine homes, two or three fine cars, several university educations, premium health insurance, a fine wardrobe, with enough left over to support a leisurely lifetime of secure and reasonable luxury.

Anyone who would not be satisfied with that level of wealth has a problem with pathological greed.

Capitalism means private control of productive enterprise. This is accomplished through the mechanism of ownership. How are private individuals going to own all the corporations in the United States if they are only allowed to have $20 million? Your policy would lead to communism in short order, and then mass starvation and death shortly afterwards.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

That's funny.

Let me write a sentence that is both true AND accurate at the same time since your first statement was neither true nor accurate.

No one has benefitted more from capitalism than the people who benefitted the most.

Your statement is a tautology.
His statement is correct. Poor people in the US have a standard of living that even middle class people in the developing world envy and aspire to.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

And last of all, there have been many modern scholarly works that suggest that WPA and CCC, had little if any effect on the economy. In fact, in 1936, the economy sank into recession, all while those programs were in operation.

[...]

I was born in 1936. According to my parents I might have been born in a hallway or in an alley if it were not for FDR's WPA and CCC programs which rescued us from the verge of homelessness, along with millions of other desperately unemployed Americans. And, again, according to my parents, who lived it, the effect of those work programs had a clearly uplifting effect not only on the economy but on the very mood of the nation. So believe whomever you choose to.

So while I'm not academically capable of offering a scholarly response to those scholarly denials of the success of FDR's programs, what I'm saying here comes right from the horse's mouth. It's from the front lines in the depth of the Great Depression. My parents always spoke reverently of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and for good reason.

Yeah.... So government screws up the economy, ruins jobs, wipes out industry............ but then comes to the rescue of WPA and CCC, and you pledge your undying favor.

Do you not see the problem here? The Great Depression was caused by government. When the 1932 tax increases hit, the countries economy fell like a rock. When the tariffs were passed, the economy fell like a rock. When the 1936 taxes hit, the country had a recession... inside the great depression...

But because FDR gave out a few bucks, to move bricks around, he saved you all?

Look... I'm not going to argue with you, or your parents. Personal emotional connections, will always out weight facts to the people to experienced them.

But when you look at the fact, devoid of feelings and personal emotions.... FDR did not save the country. FDR caused most of the problems in the country. Yes, after he, and Hoover, screwed up the entire country, he did give out a few dollars here and there.

But WPA and CCC, did not boost the economy, or return the country to growth. That's what the facts say.

I have said all I intend to say on this matter. Believe whatever you want. The facts are the facts. You can't change them.