Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Winston]

You don't relate to how people with money feel, you can't even imagine.

The rich have benefitted most from government, they should be paying the most.

While the U.S. tax system is progressive, the distribution of government spending makes the overall fiscal system more progressive than is apparent from tax distributions alone. Using a microdata model we estimate the distribution of federal, state and local taxes and spending between 1991 and 2004.

We find households in the lowest quintile of income received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004, while households in the middle quintile received $1.30, and households in the top quintile received $0.41.

Overall, tax payments exceeded government spending received for the top two quintiles of income, resulting in a net fiscal transfer of between $1.031 trillion and $1.527 trillion between quintiles. Both taxes and spending appear to have large distributional effects on households, and these effects have grown since 1991.

The results suggest tax distributions alone are an inadequate measure of progressivity, and policymakers should examine both tax and spending distributions when judging the overall fairness of policy toward income groups.

Bogus, and bogus website, with data that is 15 years old.

Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991-2004 | Tax Foundation

Try again.

You're right, things have gotten worse for higher income households and far better (more benefits) for lower income households.

Try again!

Absolutely delusional. Upward mobility in the United States has become little more than a fantasy. It is more frequent in almost every other economically developed country in the world. The United States is a terrible place to be born poor and the absolute best place in the world to be born rich. Numerous studies bear that out. Time you woke up with the rest of us in the 21st century and quit living in some fantasy land of the past.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa.

You think having sales on alternating weeks is breaking the law?

That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Segmenting the market isn't illegal.

They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition

Wow! You're confused.

Rent-seeking is an individual's or entity's use of company, organizational or individual resources to obtain economic gain without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.

Lowes is using company resources to obtain economic gain by NOT building a store in a town with an Ingles?

There oughta be a law!!! All three chains must be forced, FORCED I say, to have a store in every town. DERP!

No, having sales on alternate weeks is not illegal, except when it is done through a formal or informal agreement by competitors. And the same thing applies to the carving up of a market. It is not illegal for there not to be competing stores in an area, but it is illegal for the stores to enter into a formal or informal agreement agreeing NOT to compete.

And yes, when they have such an agreement and are able to charge prices higher than those that would be present in a FREE, competitive market they are collecting "rents" in the form of those excess profits.

There can be no doubt, the rent seeking in the United States economy has reached extreme levels. As explained by The Economist, more than two years ago and BEFORE the corporate tax cut--



But high profits across a whole economy can be a sign of sickness. They can signal the existence of firms more adept at siphoning wealth off than creating it afresh, such as those that exploit monopolies. If companies capture more profits than they can spend, it can lead to a shortfall of demand. This has been a pressing problem in America. It is not that firms are underinvesting by historical standards. Relative to assets, sales and GDP, the level of investment is pretty normal. But domestic cash flows are so high that they still have pots of cash left over after investment: about $800 billion a year.

Too much of a good thing

I suggest reading the entire article, but in the quote above pay special attention to the "firms more adept at siphoning wealth off than creating it afresh". Getting more of the pie that is already there, not making more fresh pie---classic rent seeking.

Profits are good. Water is good. Profits are vital for a functioning economy. Water is vital for life itself. But too much profit can absolutely KILL an economy and even a nation itself just like too much water can kill a person. We are in dangerous territory and the current administration economic policies are only pushing us further to the edge.

No, having sales on alternate weeks is not illegal, except when it is done through a formal or informal agreement by competitors.

Link?

And the same thing applies to the carving up of a market. It is not illegal for there not to be competing stores in an area, but it is illegal for the stores to enter into a formal or informal agreement agreeing NOT to compete.

Do you have proof of a formal or informal agreement?

And yes, when they have such an agreement and are able to charge prices higher than those that would be present in a FREE, competitive market they are collecting "rents" in the form of those excess profits.

And what's preventing a fourth competitor from coming into your area and opening up their own store in each of those "monopoly" towns?

There can be no doubt, the rent seeking in the United States economy has reached extreme levels.

Of course, if you change the definition of profit to rent seeking...……

I suggest reading the entire article, but in the quote above pay special attention to the "firms more adept at siphoning wealth off than creating it afresh". Getting more of the pie that is already there, not making more fresh pie---classic rent seeking.

Well, as bureaucratic barriers to new business creation get higher, remember the articles about that during the Obama administration, existing firms can increase their profit margins. Ever more powerful computers and the internet allow firms more avenues to squeeze out costs and boost earnings.

But too much profit can absolutely KILL an economy and even a nation itself

Well, if you balance "too much profits" with recent articles about excessive corporate, individual and government debt killing us off, we'll probably be ok.

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

 

[Winston]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I just would to see anybody that claims it is OK to tax other people at 70% to give the government 70% of their income.

 

[Flash]

Here is Communist Dan telling other people about his service in Vietnam

 

[progressive hunter]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

Wow, is that really out there. Losing government benefits is paying tax??? I have no idea how they came up with that one. The only honest point about the article is that our government discourages people from bettering themselves. Penalizing success and rewarding failure.

 

[progressive hunter]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

Wow, is that really out there. Losing government benefits is paying tax??? I have no idea how they came up with that one. The only honest point about the article is that our government discourages people from bettering themselves. Penalizing success and rewarding failure.

what that is , is college thinking,,,

they got to the point in the article/issue that made them feel warm and fuzzy and then quit thinking,, they are taught what to think and not how to think

 

[Andylusion]

You said only the rich can benefit. So you lied.

Like ray said, they aren't even worth his time. Doesn't sound like much of a benefit to workers to me.

I'm sure he benefits from a 401K or an IRA, but he's right, many workers owe no federal taxes
so why would you complain they don't benefit from tax deductions?

I was explaining the many ways the rich can benefit where normal workers don't. And I complain because deficits are out of control. Remember when the Repub tax cut was going to pay for itself? I bet you fell for that one.

First off, again as has been said many many many times.... Our government collects more money in taxes, than the GDP of all the countries of the world minus China, Japan and Germany.

If you need more tax money... you are spending too much. Stop over spending on entitlements, and this problem disappears.

The problem isn't revenue. It's spending.

But let me respond to all that you have said.

I would agree with you that most tax deductions benefit the wealthy rather than the poor.

This is natural. Because tax deductions cost money.

There seems to be some sort of mythology about how tax deductions work. I've even heard people say phrases like "The rich get wealthy off tax deductions".

This is impossible.

For example, if I pay the bank $100,000 in interest on a mortgage on my luxury mansion, I get to a tax deduction of $100,000. That sounds like a lot.... but in reality, that only lowers my taxable income by $100,000. The top marginal rate is 37%, which means I reduced by taxes by $37,000.

So the way a tax deduction works, is I spend $100,000, in order to save $37,000. I'm not getting wealthy off this. I lost $63,000 to get a tax deduction of $37,000. If I had not purchased the manage, and not paid interest, would have saved $63,000, and paid $37,000 in tax.

All tax deductions work this way. If a rich man donates $1 Million dollars to a charity, he lost $630K in order to save $370K in taxes.

No one gets wealthy from tax deductions.

The one thing that people on the left seem to ignore though, is why the deductions exist. Do you know who started pushing for deductions? It was left wingers.

Left-wingers started this whole game of tax deductions, with FDR. The left-wing elites at ivy league schools, requested that there be tax deductions for donations to their schools.

Since then, deductions have been used throughout the left-wing, to get people to act in ways they deem good. Such as wealthy people building windmills on their property, to collect massive tax benefits.

The irony is, while the left-wing routinely pushes tax deductions for everything they want, they turn right around and start screaming that the rich take advantage of these deductions to avoid taxes.

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't demand we have deductions for solar panels, and the start crying that the rich are installing solar panels, and not paying any tax. You can't pass tax deductions for energy efficient homes, and then start whining when Bill Gates avoids hundreds of thousands in tax, because he made his mansion more energy efficient.

The left may have started them, but all politicians embrace them now.

While spending is the problem, politicians aren't going to cut it. 2 years of full republican control and deficits exploded. At least dems tax and spend. Repubs spend and borrow. See how they both spend? We need to keep voting them all out till they start being responsible.

Again, as I explained before... of course the politicians embrace. Politicians make money by driving up taxes, and then 'selling' tax deductions. Politicians LOVE high taxes. How else can they get wealthy people to spend $200,000 in lobbying efforts?

Just think about it. If tax rates are really low.... why would you spend hundreds of thousand in lobbying to get a tax deduction? If my tax rate on my income was 10%.... would I bother spending $200,000 to lobby for a tax deduction, if my income was $1 Million a year?

Of course not. That would be a huge waste. But then those poor pitiful 'public servants' wouldn't have anyone lobbying them. And how sad that would be......

So the politicians convince the public that taxes are good! And taxes create jobs, and benefit the public! And taxes magically cause poor people to earn a middle class income! And taxes have all these magical unseen benefits!

Why? Because if they jack up taxes, suddenly the wealthy show up in Washington with their lobbying groups, and the "public servants" are lobbied, and wined and dinned, and taking to 'charity balls'... which always cracks me up, because the last thing anyone there is thinking about is charity.

The politicians LOVE high taxes, and the politicians LOVE tax deductions... and the politicians LOVE make you think, it's all for your benefit.

Again, read Atlas Shrugged. Rand was dead on right about all of it.

At least dems tax and spend. Repubs spend and borrow.

Maybe you missed it, but the world record for highest deficit, was the first two years of Obama.... that would be when he had control over both houses, and the presidency.

Not really going to convince me that Democrats are avoiding deficits.

That said, I agree that both parties tend to spend more. Because the public supports it. That's the real problem. The problem isn't the political parties. The problem is the public.

People need to change how they view government. Stop supporting endless entitlements.

But if you say "we need to cut (x)"... people freak out. Which is exactly what happened in Greece. For decades... literally 20 year or more, people inside Greece warned that over spending was a problem, and it wasn't sustainable.

Yet every time they tried to deal with the problem, the people of Greece freaked out, and the spending kept going. And the unavoidable and predictable result was... the government imploded, and the economy tanked, and people were burning sticks and wood to survive the winter, because no one could even afford natural gas. People were sitting and weeping, outside the state run banks, and hospitals were closed, with people laying on the sidewalk in front. And you have half a million people leaving the country, to find a better life, and work elsewhere.

Blaming the political parties is a joke. It's a false misdirection. The political parties are merely a reflection of the public. The bottom line is, there is large number of people who want the spending to continue, and they honestly don't care if it destroys the country, as long as they get their money before it crashes.

And we see it here on this forum all the time.

Every single time a thread comes up about Social Security or Medicare, it doesn't matter how many reports we post, how much math we walk through, or how much evidence we bring.... there are people that will defend it to the bitter end.

That is where the problem is. Until we deal with the mindless suicide cult of stupidity that supports the never ending spending... the political parties will do what they need to, in order to keep getting elected. Again, Ayn Rand was dead on right. Left-wing ideology is a suicide cult. Keynes the economist, that underpins most left-wing economic beliefs, said it himself "In the long run, we're all dead".

Just look at Venezuela. Keynes was right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

Wow, is that really out there. Losing government benefits is paying tax??? I have no idea how they came up with that one. The only honest point about the article is that our government discourages people from bettering themselves. Penalizing success and rewarding failure.

what that is , is college thinking,,,

they got to the point in the article/issue that made them feel warm and fuzzy and then quit thinking,, they are taught what to think and not how to think

I guess they don't understand that paying taxes is when you earn money, and give government a portion of what you made. What this article is saying is that when government gives you less or cuts you off totally, that's being taxed. How can you be taxed on something that wasn't yours in the first place; something you never earned?

 

[Markle]

Absolutely delusional. Upward mobility in the United States has become little more than a fantasy. It is more frequent in almost every other economically developed country in the world. The United States is a terrible place to be born poor and the absolute best place in the world to be born rich. Numerous studies bear that out. Time you woke up with the rest of us in the 21st century and quit living in some fantasy land of the past.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf

Bottom line, of the 41 pages, what is your point?

 

[danielpalos]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

Roughly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money.

We should raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Absolutely delusional. Upward mobility in the United States has become little more than a fantasy. It is more frequent in almost every other economically developed country in the world. The United States is a terrible place to be born poor and the absolute best place in the world to be born rich. Numerous studies bear that out. Time you woke up with the rest of us in the 21st century and quit living in some fantasy land of the past.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers/17-21.pdf

Bottom line, of the 41 pages, what is your point?

Firms have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate.

Why any failures?

 

[Flash]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

Roughly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money.

We should raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

No Moon Bat you are confused.

The fucking government needs to get out of the business of telling employers how much to pay their employees. That is oppression.

If we really wanted to raise wages then we need to reduce the friggin cost of government. Right now the cost of combined government in this country is 40% of the GDP and that tremendous amount of money that is taken out of the productive economy is the reason why Americans have lower wages than what they could demand in a booming economy.

 

[Markle]

Firms have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate.

Why any failures?

 

[Markle]

We should raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

I shouldn't be surprised that you continue, even though you know better, to push for failed policy changes.

DEFINITION of Bracket Creep
A bracket creep is a situation wherein inflation pushes income into higher tax brackets. The result is an increase in income taxes but no increase in real purchasing power.

 

[danielpalos]

If any of you stupid confused greedy Moon Bat think that it is moral for the filthy government to take 70%of somebody's income then when you figure out your taxes this year then send the government 70% of yours. Put your money where your fucking mouth is.

Funny, the very people that scream 70% on the wealthy is too high are usually the ones screaming the poor need to get off their ass and work harder to make more money. Yet some of them face a marginal tax rate of 80%.

Welfare Reform: Some Poor Face 80% Marginal Tax Rates

I call bullshit,,,the poor dont pay income taxs


Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?

Roughly half of Americans who pay no federal income tax do so because they simply don't earn enough money.

We should raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

No Moon Bat you are confused.

The fucking government needs to get out of the business of telling employers how much to pay their employees. That is oppression.

If we really wanted to raise wages then we need to reduce the friggin cost of government. Right now the cost of combined government in this country is 40% of the GDP and that tremendous amount of money that is taken out of the productive economy is the reason why Americans have lower wages than what they could demand in a booming economy.

The right wing is more confused. Capitalism always works in right wing fantasy regardless of any other inputs.

You all can't even abolish our extra-Constitutional drug war that is nowhere to be found in the doctrine of the Republicans.

 

[danielpalos]

Firms have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate.

Why any failures?

lol. the right wing Only blames the Poor for failing under our form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

We should raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

I shouldn't be surprised that you continue, even though you know better, to push for failed policy changes.

DEFINITION of Bracket Creep
A bracket creep is a situation wherein inflation pushes income into higher tax brackets. The result is an increase in income taxes but no increase in real purchasing power.

a cost of living adjustment is what we are discussing.