[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Billo_Really]

You left out the "why"...Explain.

I don't have a "why"!

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm saving myself for Chuck Norris... But I guess Jack Bauer is just as good.

Jack Bauer!

Is he the guy from 24?

 

[saveliberty]

Government has grown too large. Any increase is wrong.

 

[KissMy]

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.

That is why the Middle Class has no wealth. The Middle Class has to pay larger tax rates & payroll taxes. Wealth is redistributed to the Rich who have tax loopholes & low or no payroll tax & low dividend tax. If you are Rich the tax code redistributes wealth to you.

Get rid of payroll taxes & loopholes & watch the economy soar. The producers can build wealth.

 

[KissMy]

yes and government spending as a share of GNP went from around 25% in 1950 to around 37% today!! Republicans would love to go back to 1950 taxing and spending levels!!

You won't get there electing out of control spending Republicans like both Bush presidents. We need presidents like Regan, Clinton & Obama.

 

[ilia25]

Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.

And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

 

[tooAlive]

Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.

And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

Enjoy this one then.

The top 1% of earners from 1966 to 1970 paid an effective tax rate of 30%.

The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate. According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%. Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What the Top 1% Really Paid When the Top Tax Bracket Was 91%

Granted the information doesn't go back to 1960 (IRS Public Use File data data only goes back to 1966), rates were still in the 70% range during this time. How do you explain 1%ers only paying 30%?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.

Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.

Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.

And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate – that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.

And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.pdf

They just don't get it...

Ones like these morons, TDM, etc just spew out these rates that they would love to punish people with out of jealousy.. and don't quite get that what was considered income, what was deductible, etc was MUCH different.. and that the effective rates were indeed LOWER...

What morons

 

[tooAlive]

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.

[ame=http://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg]Thatcher's Last Stand Against Socialism - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you.

And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!

No, that is not proof. You failed to include deductions and loopholes that would shelter 90% of that income from any taxes at all. After Reagan restructured taxes, the burden on the top 10% of income earners went UP - not down. Why? Because 90% of loopholes were eliminated.


“A tax that places significantly different burdens on taxpayers in similar economic circumstances is not fair. For example, if two similar families have the same income, they should ordinarily pay roughly the same amount of income tax, regardless of the sources or uses of that income.”

— Tax Reform report of the Treasury Department to President Ronald Reagan, November 1984

 

[Uncensored2008]

0.05% transaction tax on everything.

Impossible to enforce.

Make it a 15% sales tax so that it is equitable to all, and people grasp what they REALLY pay in taxes.

 

[ilia25]

Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you.

And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!

No, that is not proof. You failed to include deductions and loopholes that would shelter 90% of that income from any taxes at all.

I have not failed, I was not asked to account for the loopholes. The question was how a million of non-investment income would be taxed, and the answer is that 2/3 of it would have to be given away.

But you are free to list any deductions and loopholes that would apply to this scenario.

 

[ilia25]

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

 

[Foxfyre]

Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.

And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren’t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that? The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's. And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.

But even WITH that disparity, history records this:

The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, “the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity.” It was often described as an “economic miracle.” The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .

And this. . . .

There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more “equal,” that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantly—and in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s—while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchanged—the wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.
The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that? The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's. And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.

But even WITH that disparity, history records this:

The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, “the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity.” It was often described as an “economic miracle.” The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .

And this. . . .

There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more “equal,” that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantly—and in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s—while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchanged—the wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.
The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.

Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?

 

[FA_Q2]

No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

Enjoy this one then.

The top 1% of earners from 1966 to 1970 paid an effective tax rate of 30%.

The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate. According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%. Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What the Top 1% Really Paid When the Top Tax Bracket Was 91%

Granted the information doesn't go back to 1960 (IRS Public Use File data data only goes back to 1966), rates were still in the 70% range during this time. How do you explain 1%ers only paying 30%?

Why have you ignored this chart ilia? Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?

Here is a simple truth – the wealth distribution in this nation has virtually nothing to do with the tax rates in general. It has everything to do with the explosion of other low pay and easily replicable jobs in this nation as the high paying jobs have moved to a world stage. We use to be so far ahead of the world that there was no competition at all. With automation, globalization and the rise of several other industrial juggernauts we have begun to lose the MASSIVE advantage that we had. Likely, that is never coming back. Technology is NOT going away and we are no longer able to support a population of extremely rich people while the rest of the world is dirt poor.

How to fix this? I am not sure but I do know that taxing the crap out of producers is not going to do anything but move MORE of that production to other nations. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept. The payroll taxes are part of that and an insane tax that is levied on not only the poor but the operating costs of business itself. Junking that would go a long way but increasing the tax on the rich is not going to do anything at all to balance that out. They will continue to pay around 30% and you simply are not going to get a whole lot more than that out of them.

 

[ilia25]

Why have you ignored this chart ilia? Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?

I'm not ignoring it. It shows that 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. And that is my point:
"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."

Here is a simple truth – the wealth distribution in this nation has virtually nothing to do with the tax rates in general. It has everything to do with the explosion of other low pay and easily replicable jobs in this nation as the high paying jobs have moved to a world stage.

That is true, and that is why we have to use taxes to redistribute wealth back from the rich to the poor.

How to fix this? I am not sure but I do know that taxing the crap out of producers is not going to do anything but move MORE of that production to other nations. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept.

Because it is not true. Production is moved where it is profitable. But its profitability has nothing to do with personal taxes.

 

[tooAlive]

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.

Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.

So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.

Gotcha.

 

[tooAlive]

Why have you ignored this chart ilia? Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?

I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."

Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.

So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.

During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that? The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's. And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.

But even WITH that disparity, history records this:

The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, “the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity.” It was often described as an “economic miracle.” The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .

And this. . . .

There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more “equal,” that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantly—and in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s—while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchanged—the wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.
The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.

Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?

It depends on what is in the bill. The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself. If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.

However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?