"Working Class Hero"

[sparky]

sauce for the goose>






This Tax Day report identifies two prime drivers behind our current budget "squeeze."

One, we have indeed become wealthier than ever. But our wealth has become incredibly more concentrated at our economic summit. U.S. income is cascading disproportionately to the top.

Two, we are taxing the dollars that go to our ever-richer rich — and the corporations they own — at levels far below the tax rates that America levied just a few decades ago. We have, in effect, shifted our tax burden off the shoulders of those most able to bear it and away from those who disproportionately benefit from government investments the most.

These two factors — more dollars at the top, significantly lower taxes on these dollars — have unleashed a fiscal nightmare. Can we wake up in time to avoid the crippling austerity that so many of our political leaders insist we must accept?

This report offers both an analysis of our current predicament and a series of proposals that can help open our eyes to a far more equitable — and brighter — future.

Key Tax Facts

•15,753: The number of households in 1961 with $1 million in taxable income (adjusted for inflation).

•361,000: The number of households in 2011 estimated to have $1 million in taxable income.

•43.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million paid in taxes in 1961 (adjusted for 2011 dollars)

•23.1: Percent of total reported income that Americans earning $1 million are likely to pay in taxes in 2011, estimated from latest IRS data.

•47.4: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 1961.

•11.1: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 2011.
Unnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown - IPS

 

[georgephillip]

And even if they did jack up taxes on The Rich, it wouldn't even cover a month of Obama Deficits.

But those of us who've been paying attention know that the real Tax Target is the broad middle class.

For anyone who wants to discuss the revenue side of the budget debate knowledgably, I highly recommend spending some time with the IRS's Statistics on Income. Table 1.1 under Individual Statistical Tables is a good place to start: Index of /pub/irs-soi/...

You can see, for example, that total taxable income in 2008 was $5,488 billion. Taxable income over $100,000 was $1,582 billion, over $200,000 was $1,185 billion, over $500,000 was $820 billion, over $1 million was $616 billion, over $2 million was $460 billion, over $5 million was $302 billion, and over $10 million was $212 billion. Effective tax rates as a percentage of taxable income seem to top out around 27%.

You can estimate the effects of various proposals in the best case, which is that each percentage point increase in the marginal rate translates to an equal increase in the effective rate. Going back to 2000 ("Clinton era") marginal rates on income over $200,000, let's call it a 5 percentage point increase in the marginal rate, would therefore yield $59 billion on a static basis. Going from there to a 45% rate on incomes over $1 million (another 5 percentage point increase) yields an additional $31 billion. Or, instead, on top of 2000 rates over $200,000, 50%/60%/70% on $500,000/$5 million/$10 million? An extra $133 billion, or nearly 1% of GDP. That's not accounting for the further middle class tax cuts that are usually proposed along with these "millionaires' taxes."

Now, compare this to deficits of $1,413 billion in 2009 and $1,293 billion in 2010, and using optimistic White House estimates, $1,645 billion in 2011 $1,101 billion in 2012, $768 billion in 2013, and continuing at over $600 billion after.

Alternatively, you might also notice that while taxable income in 2008 was $5,488 billion, adjusted gross income on all returns was $7,583 billion on taxable returns only (with an additional $680 billion on untaxable returns), which means that $2,095 billion isn't even in the tax base. $592 billion of that difference is exemptions, which are not tax expenditures, and $1,512 billion is deductions, which are mostly tax expenditures.

My point is just that I don't see how deficits this large can be closed with income taxes on the rich, even at marginal rates far higher than anything we've seen in the post-1986 era. Paying for spending at near-term levels, not even considering entitlement and interest payments that will accelerate a decade out, would have to include meaningful base broadening by eliminating tax expenditures like the mortgage interest deduction or the employer health case deduction, or would have to rely on new taxes like a VAT.

Eat the Rich - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

Lots of good details here that will take me some time to grasp, bo.

First question: Is there anyway of knowing at what point incomes over $100,000/year transition from paying taxes at a rate of 30% and begin paying a 15% capital gains rate?

Secondly, assuming it's accurate to say taxing the super rich at the levels they paid in the 50s and 60s will not balance the budget, does that justify allowing the richest 1% to acquire ever larger shares of national income and wealth?

Finally, what are your thoughts about "Fred"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And even if they did jack up taxes on The Rich, it wouldn't even cover a month of Obama Deficits.

But those of us who've been paying attention know that the real Tax Target is the broad middle class.

For anyone who wants to discuss the revenue side of the budget debate knowledgably, I highly recommend spending some time with the IRS's Statistics on Income. Table 1.1 under Individual Statistical Tables is a good place to start: Index of /pub/irs-soi/...

You can see, for example, that total taxable income in 2008 was $5,488 billion. Taxable income over $100,000 was $1,582 billion, over $200,000 was $1,185 billion, over $500,000 was $820 billion, over $1 million was $616 billion, over $2 million was $460 billion, over $5 million was $302 billion, and over $10 million was $212 billion. Effective tax rates as a percentage of taxable income seem to top out around 27%.

You can estimate the effects of various proposals in the best case, which is that each percentage point increase in the marginal rate translates to an equal increase in the effective rate. Going back to 2000 ("Clinton era") marginal rates on income over $200,000, let's call it a 5 percentage point increase in the marginal rate, would therefore yield $59 billion on a static basis. Going from there to a 45% rate on incomes over $1 million (another 5 percentage point increase) yields an additional $31 billion. Or, instead, on top of 2000 rates over $200,000, 50%/60%/70% on $500,000/$5 million/$10 million? An extra $133 billion, or nearly 1% of GDP. That's not accounting for the further middle class tax cuts that are usually proposed along with these "millionaires' taxes."

Now, compare this to deficits of $1,413 billion in 2009 and $1,293 billion in 2010, and using optimistic White House estimates, $1,645 billion in 2011 $1,101 billion in 2012, $768 billion in 2013, and continuing at over $600 billion after.

Alternatively, you might also notice that while taxable income in 2008 was $5,488 billion, adjusted gross income on all returns was $7,583 billion on taxable returns only (with an additional $680 billion on untaxable returns), which means that $2,095 billion isn't even in the tax base. $592 billion of that difference is exemptions, which are not tax expenditures, and $1,512 billion is deductions, which are mostly tax expenditures.

My point is just that I don't see how deficits this large can be closed with income taxes on the rich, even at marginal rates far higher than anything we've seen in the post-1986 era. Paying for spending at near-term levels, not even considering entitlement and interest payments that will accelerate a decade out, would have to include meaningful base broadening by eliminating tax expenditures like the mortgage interest deduction or the employer health case deduction, or would have to rely on new taxes like a VAT.

Eat the Rich - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

Lots of good details here that will take me some time to grasp, bo.

First question: Is there anyway of knowing at what point incomes over $100,000/year transition from paying taxes at a rate of 30% and begin paying a 15% capital gains rate?

Secondly, assuming it's accurate to say taxing the super rich at the levels they paid in the 50s and 60s will not balance the budget, does that justify allowing the richest 1% to acquire ever larger shares of national income and wealth?

Finally, what are your thoughts about "Fred"?

Do you really believe that taking more money away from high earners via taxes will increase your income?

 

[georgephillip]

No.

I believe taxing high earners at the same rates they paid thirty years ago will save Pell Grants and Heartstart, for example. for many of America's neediest citizens.

I also believe taxing the super rich could initiate a formal debate on issues like bringing Universal Basic Income to all Americans.

UBI Defined

"By universal basic income I mean an income paid by a government, at a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society. The grant is paid, and its level is fixed, irrespective of whether the person is rich or poor, lives alone or with others, is willing to work or not. In most versions–certainly in mine–it is granted not only to citizens, but to all permanent residents.

"The UBI is called 'basic' because it is something on which a person can safely count, a material foundation on which a life can firmly rest.

"Any other income–whether in cash or in kind, from work or savings, from the market or the state–can lawfully be added to it."

 

[kaz]

"...is something to be
Keep you doped on religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking (slaves) as far as I can see."

'Apologies to John Lennon since he used the word "peasants" instead of "slaves". I suspect Lennon was a millionaire many times over when he wrote these lyrics.

Why is it America's corporate rich reward themselves "in direct proportion to the amount of suffering they have caused" and taxpayers who bailed out Wall Street continue to deny the existence of class war?

Are you disputing gravity also?

"Instead of taxing the super rich on the bonuses dispensed by top corporations such as Exxon, Bank of America, General Electric, Chevron and Boeing, all of which managed to avoid paying any federal corporate taxes last year, the politicians of both parties in Congress are about to accede to the Republican demand that programs that help ordinary folks be cut to pay for the programs that bailed out the banks."

Cut the programs like Headstart that help the children of ordinary taxpayers to pay for the programs that are bailing out Wall Street?

Only slaves born to serve the corporation (or the cross) could vote for that.

The Peasants Need Pitchforks | Truthout

Waaahhhh, you have to fund your own charities, waahhhhh, waaaahhhhh.

Got it.

 

[georgephillip]

Who should have to fund http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No.

I believe taxing high earners at the same rates they paid thirty years ago will save Pell Grants and Heartstart, for example. for many of America's neediest citizens.

I also believe taxing the super rich could initiate a formal debate on issues like bringing Universal Basic Income to all Americans.

UBI Defined

"By universal basic income I mean an income paid by a government, at a uniform level and at regular intervals, to each adult member of society. The grant is paid, and its level is fixed, irrespective of whether the person is rich or poor, lives alone or with others, is willing to work or not. In most versions–certainly in mine–it is granted not only to citizens, but to all permanent residents.

"The UBI is called 'basic' because it is something on which a person can safely count, a material foundation on which a life can firmly rest.

"Any other income–whether in cash or in kind, from work or savings, from the market or the state–can lawfully be added to it."

Why should anyone's taxes go to Pell grants or head start?

The fucking government should not be in the college business period.

UBI

Unmitigated Brainless Idea.

 

[georgephillip]

Promoting the general welfare?

When the first Industrial Revolution began it was marketed as a long term solution to eternal toil. The machine has replaced the need of millions of hours of human labor; however, the profits from the machine go overwhelmingly to the richest humans.

Why not socialize cost AND profits?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Promoting the general welfare?

When the first Industrial Revolution began it was marketed as a long term solution to eternal toil. The machine has replaced the need of millions of hours of human labor; however, the profits from the machine go overwhelmingly to the richest humans.

Why not socialize cost AND profits?

Promote and provide are not the same thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Income taxes paid at a 15% rate instead of the 35% paid by productive citizens who didn't crash the housing market.

Scheer's point is that instead of taxing the richest 1% of Americans at the same rates their servants pay, Republicans AND Democrats are choosing to cut Headstart.

Bonuses are taxed at the same rate as all other income, nitwit. You're thinking of capital gains.

 

[bripat9643]

No.

I believe taxing high earners at the same rates they paid thirty years ago will save Pell Grants and Heartstart, for example. for many of America's neediest citizens.

That's because you're a leftwingnitwit who thinks the rich will continue to work and invest even if they are taxed at 100% of their income.

I also believe taxing the super rich could initiate a formal debate on issues like bringing Universal Basic Income to all Americans.

We've already had that debate. Socialism has never worked and it never will. the last thing we need is having the government decide how much people earn.

 

[bripat9643]

If all you aspire to be is a working class slob, I pity you.

It isn't dying as a working class slob that keeps me awake some nights, it's dying as a wage slave.

Abraham Lincoln apparently saw little difference between chattel slavery and wage slaves. Certainly working conditions are better in this country today than in Abe's, however you don't have to endorse the Labor Theory of Value to suspect workers in a corporate controlled marketplace are not being paid the full value of their labor.

Yes you do. Only a Marxist thinks there is some objective way to measure the value of labor other than the price set by supply and demand.

Face it: you're a Marxist.

 

[snjmom]

No.

I believe taxing high earners at the same rates they paid thirty years ago will save Pell Grants and Heartstart, for example. for many of America's neediest citizens.

That's because you're a leftwingnitwit who thinks the rich will continue to work and invest even if they are taxed at 100% of their income.

I also believe taxing the super rich could initiate a formal debate on issues like bringing Universal Basic Income to all Americans.

We've already had that debate. Socialism has never worked and it never will. the last thing we need is having the government decide how much people earn.

Who is talking about taxing 100% of anyone's income? 30 yrs ago was Ronnie's era, certainly we can live with the rates he imposed?

Certainly no one is talking about the gov eliminating the shareholder and nationalizing industries either. Certain wealth transfers aide in the stabilization of a society, country, culture. Top heavy doesn't work in engineering and it doesn't work in societies.


Unless you want to see the political equivalent of the business cycle, with regular destruction of countries and their re-forming. That is not a pretty path to take.

 

[editec]

WEll OF COURSE workers do not received the FULL measure of their productivity.

One fundamental principle of CAPITALISM is that workers must be paid LESS THAN the full measure of theur production to insure that CAPITAL formation is possible.

There is nothing WRONG with that so long as the CAPTIAL is then reinvested back into the society of workers who created that capital formation to begin with.

And that is what is no longer happening.

The capital formations that this nation created are often now invested in production elsewhere.

And worse, that output of that production is now competeing with production that happens here.

So the capital that our fathers formed is now creating products that today's American workers must compete AGAINST.

REad ATLAS Shrugged again..

Clearly most of you who think this is a wonderful book with a great plan of how society must work STILL don't quite GET IT.

ATLAS (John Galt) is taking the CAPITAL formation and investing it ELSEWHERE.

In other words, tGalt is advising people to STEAL the CAPITAL FORMATIONS that was put into their hands and reinvest it elsewhere.

ATLAS SHRUGGED is the Rand's call for the rich to break the SOCIAL CONTRACT of capitalism.

And that, folks, is exactly what is happening, too.

AS is not a homage to capitalism, it is a treasonous rant AGAINST the social contract that capitalism represents.

Rand is a fascist, not a patriot.

 

[midcan5]

How many people do those ordinary folks you speak of, employ?

How is it that anyone can ask this question? The answer is all of them, every single thing is created by a market that includes everyone, aka consumers, for without the everyone there'd be no market nor demand nor even money. The silly economics of today assumes rich people create jobs? They do not, it is demand and purchasing and need that create jobs and that comes from every tom dick and harriet. Buy American, support yourself and your neighbor and your country, and shop where they pay a fair wage. Problem solved.

As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state, so they are only morally entitled to an enormous sum, but not an absurd sum. The Conservative Nanny State

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." Thomas Paine
.

 

[georgephillip]

"As far as the super rich, they only make those enormous sums because of the state,..."

Dean Baker or Tom Paine could not have said it better:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

I guess my question is which nanny-state Obama favors?

 

[georgephillip]

Promoting the general welfare?

When the first Industrial Revolution began it was marketed as a long term solution to eternal toil. The machine has replaced the need of millions of hours of human labor; however, the profits from the machine go overwhelmingly to the richest humans.

Why not socialize cost AND profits?

Promote and provide are not the same thing.

How much more of US national income and wealth are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

Would any of the richest 1% of Americans have amassed their fortunes without nanny-state policies that socialize cost while privatizing profit?

For example, without Republicans AND Democrats over the last 30 years writing immigration laws that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers, while restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees?

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[georgephillip]

Income taxes paid at a 15% rate instead of the 35% paid by productive citizens who didn't crash the housing market.

Scheer's point is that instead of taxing the richest 1% of Americans at the same rates their servants pay, Republicans AND Democrats are choosing to cut Headstart.

Bonuses are taxed at the same rate as all other income, nitwit. You're thinking of capital gains.

Some bonuses are taxed as capital gains.

Which is why some parasites structure their pay packages in ways that allow them to receive most of their annual income as a bonus instead of salary.

How much more of total US national income and wealth are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

 

[georgephillip]

No.

I believe taxing high earners at the same rates they paid thirty years ago will save Pell Grants and Heartstart, for example. for many of America's neediest citizens.

That's because you're a leftwingnitwit who thinks the rich will continue to work and invest even if they are taxed at 100% of their income.

I also believe taxing the super rich could initiate a formal debate on issues like bringing Universal Basic Income to all Americans.

We've already had that debate. Socialism has never worked and it never will. the last thing we need is having the government decide how much people earn.

Has it ever occurred to you the rich would not even exist without the state? Or that jobs are created by demand, purchasing and need and not by parasites perpetually bribing politicians for tax favors?

No one I know is calling for taxing the rich at a 100% rate.
Are you?

Is there any reason the richest 1% shouldn't be paying taxes at the same rates they paid when Reagan took office?

Finally, our debate over socialism was interrupted by WWII and the right-wing witch hunts that followed. Socialism has never been tried (least of all in Russia) and so far capitalism is self-destructing exactly as Marx predicted it would:

On an altar of greed.(and stupidity)

 

[Skull Pilot]

Promoting the general welfare?

When the first Industrial Revolution began it was marketed as a long term solution to eternal toil. The machine has replaced the need of millions of hours of human labor; however, the profits from the machine go overwhelmingly to the richest humans.

Why not socialize cost AND profits?

Promote and provide are not the same thing.

How much more of US national income and wealth are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

Would any of the richest 1% of Americans have amassed their fortunes without nanny-state policies that socialize cost while privatizing profit?

For example, without Republicans AND Democrats over the last 30 years writing immigration laws that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers, while restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees?

The Conservative Nanny State

As much as they can get. Just like you are entitled to as much as you can get.

If you have an issue with politicians then blame them for the problems you whine about.