When Have You Made Enough Money?

[MaggieMae]

As just one example, oil was first shipped in barrels, which is why we still measure oil in terms of the number of barrels today, even though oil is seldom -- if ever -- actually shipped in barrels any more. John D. Rockefeller shipped his oil in railroad tank cars, reducing transportation costs, among other costs that he found ways of reducing.
Thomas Sowell

Interesting that Obama's comment is obviously one he would not have made to Thomas Sowell. It was made in the context of Wall Street greed. Yet Sowell also uses a cliche' to make his point that an old commonly used term does not mean the same when placed in the moment.

This is just one more example of the right wing playing GOTCHA. Yawn....

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

 

[boedicca]

That's not at all obvious. Obama defines families that make $250,000 year as The Rich for whom he plans to raise taxes. In reality, taxes will increase for everyone who pays them. For a gluttonous government, if you earn anything, it's too much and a target for taxation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Millions of individuals deciding how to allocate their own income and wealth are going to do a better job than 535 people in Washington DC.

For the most part, they already do. You know damned well there will never be some law or edict putting a cap on earnings, so I don't know why this is even being discussed.

 

[boedicca]

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

 

[Stainmaster]

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

You need a class in economic, statistical interpretation.

 

[MaggieMae]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

If a flat tax law were ever enacted that had this once sentence, it would be a good thing:

THE TAX RATE WILL BE ___% FOR ALL LEVELS OF INCOME​

But realistically, you know that will never happen. A flat tax law would be overflowing with all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, waivers, and a few what-if scenarios just for good measure.

 

[boedicca]

Skidmarks, don't you have some sexual fetish that needs attending somewhere?

 

[MaggieMae]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Excuse me, there is a huge difference between what a person decides he or she NEEDS and what a person earns. However much rich people give to charity--and I think most rich people give a LOT to charity--that has absolutely zero bearing on how much they earn.

But how do you justify taxing the guy who made a million dollars at a highr percentage than the guy who made $30+k? More particularly when the guy who made a million probably helped hundreds of folks make $30+k each in the process of making that million.

Because the guy who made a million helping folks make $30K gets to write off the cost of employing those individuals.

 

[Avatar4321]

When I say so

 

[midcan5]

Money is one of those things the insecure will never have enough of, nor the wasteful. The question should be is it moral - not legal or OK - to make a billion dollars, while the majority of the world lives on less than two dollars and a child dies every few seconds because of a lack of care or proper diet. If you can put into your mind the idea that it is OK then you are not my kind of person. We live a few seconds and if we are lucky enough to live well, great, but to assume you are so special that you need five houses and three Bentleys is beyond this liberal's imagination.


"For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070



"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

 

[boedicca]

Should it be taxed at higher levels or should they pay more money in taxes?

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

If a flat tax law were ever enacted that had this once sentence, it would be a good thing:

THE TAX RATE WILL BE ___% FOR ALL LEVELS OF INCOME​

But realistically, you know that will never happen. A flat tax law would be overflowing with all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, waivers, and a few what-if scenarios just for good measure.

I'd love to see a flat tax as the only federal tax. 15% (10% would be even better) for all income over a moderate level which covers all federal spending including residual entitlements - with the winding down of SS and a transition to a Chilean style pension system.

 

[boedicca]

"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

There is no real MORAL justification for such confiscatory income tax rates. The argument for such as being moral is Orwellian.

 

[xsited1]

When Have You Made Enough Money?

Not one 'Yes'???? Where are the Obamabots?

 

[Tech_Esq]

An excellent question.

Should all income be taxed equally across the board whether it is $100 or $1 million so that everybody keeps the same percentage of the money they earn? Or should the rich be allowed to keep a smaller percentage of the money they earn?

If a flat tax law were ever enacted that had this once sentence, it would be a good thing:

THE TAX RATE WILL BE ___% FOR ALL LEVELS OF INCOME​

But realistically, you know that will never happen. A flat tax law would be overflowing with all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, waivers, and a few what-if scenarios just for good measure.

I'd love to see a flat tax as the only federal tax. 15% (10% would be even better) for all income over a moderate level which covers all federal spending including residual entitlements - with the winding down of SS and a transition to a Chilean style pension system.

We'll have to get rid of several unnecessary agencies to go down that far. When do we start!?!

I have an idea, let's get Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Darby Lumber overturned by the Supreme Court. That would make about half of what the Government is currently doing illegal. Forcing the government to close up shop! Nice trick, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Excuse me, there is a huge difference between what a person decides he or she NEEDS and what a person earns. However much rich people give to charity--and I think most rich people give a LOT to charity--that has absolutely zero bearing on how much they earn.

But how do you justify taxing the guy who made a million dollars at a highr percentage than the guy who made $30+k? More particularly when the guy who made a million probably helped hundreds of folks make $30+k each in the process of making that million.

But how do you justify taxing the guy who made a million dollars at a highr percentage than the guy who made $30+k?

I justify taxing the rich guy more because you can't get blood from a stone. Raising tax rates on people who have no money raises nothing.

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Trying to gain more tax dollars from the 50% who have a nickle rather than the one richest individual who has $33.40 makes no sense

 

[Stainmaster]

Skidmarks, don't you have some sexual fetish that needs attending somewhere?

You certainly spend a lot of time discussing my rectum. Is there something you want?

For now just try to stay on topic;

When Have You Made Enough Money?​

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's look at those top rates for inflation adjusted income in 2010 dollars:

1918, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $14.4M

1944, top tax rate of 94% applies to income over $2.477M

1947, top tax rate of 86.45% applies to income over $1.955M

1964, top tax rate of 77% applies to income over $2.8M

1971, top tax rate of 70% applies to income over $1,076M

1988, top tax rate of 28% applies to income over $54,825 (note, not millions anymore)

1994 top tax rate of 39.6% applies to income over $367,761

The Bush era top tax rate is 35% not 33% - 2003 applies to taxable income over $369,608

Obama's tax rate of 39.6% will applies to incomes over $375,700 (this doesn't include the additional SS and Medicare surcharges of 3.8% to be added as well).


The top rates no longer apply to the uber rich - they apply to upper middle class families in urban areas. Why they should be punished with 94% tax rates is beyond me.

It's also important to note that the total tax burden on the median American family as a percent of income has more than doubled since the 1950s. The justification for taxes to be imposed on The Rich is just a pretext to spread them over a broader population over time.

Sources:

Historical Top Tax Rate

TPC Tax Topics | 2010 Budget -* Tax Increases on High-Income Taxpayers

CPI Inflation Calculator

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

People need to stop all the fearmongering over tax hikes, especially since nothing has happened yet. I also continue to be frustrated when I hear people say that the economy isn't improving. It is. But it took a decade to get to the low point it was a year ago, and it will take longer than a year, longer than five years even, to steady itself.

I suggest you bookmark this site and keep better abreast of real tax facts, unspun by our favorite pundits:

The Tax Foundation - Fate of Bush Tax Cuts Uncertain As Expiration Approaches

 

[Tech_Esq]

Money is one of those things the insecure will never have enough of, nor the wasteful. The question should be is it moral - not legal or OK - to make a billion dollars, while the majority of the world lives on less than two dollars and a child dies every few seconds because of a lack of care or proper diet. If you can put into your mind the idea that it is OK then you are not my kind of person. We live a few seconds and if we are lucky enough to live well, great, but to assume you are so special that you need five houses and three Bentleys is beyond this liberal's imagination.


"For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070



"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

You are making an argument in favor of creating poverty. Shame on you. It's no sin to be impoverished, but it is a sin to make someone that way. Following your formula with have millions impoverished.

Why? Why do you have this insatiable need to impoverish people? You should see someone about that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How on earth do you arrive at 94%? Also, the 39.6% rate is a rollback to the rate under Clinton, and I didn't hear a whole lot of people bitching about how bad off they were financially.

I'm responding to silkyeggsalad's graph a few posts earlier. It's historical fact. You can find it in the source link which shows historical top tax rates.

The Clinton era was buoyed by high economic growth resulting from the cumulative effects of the Reagan tax decreases, the peace dividend, and the artificial growth from the y2K/dotcom/telecom buildout bubble. Unemployment was low. Despite the high tax rate, economic growth was robust enough that the federal government remained at 20% of GDP.

Contrast that with Obama's tax increases, spending binge, anemic economic growth, and the increase of the Federal Government to 25% of GDP - and high unemployment.

Raising taxes under the current circumstances is incredibly damaging to the economy - Obamanomics is a failure.

As an aside, there was an incident at a citizens' gathering with their House Rep in Pleasanton last year. One of the constituents asked him what the top tax rate should be given that he said taxes should be raised. The Rep answered: 90%.

People need to stop all the fearmongering over tax hikes, especially since nothing has happened yet. I also continue to be frustrated when I hear people say that the economy isn't improving. It is. But it took a decade to get to the low point it was a year ago, and it will take longer than a year, longer than five years even, to steady itself.

I suggest you bookmark this site and keep better abreast of real tax facts, unspun by our favorite pundits:

The Tax Foundation - Fate of Bush Tax Cuts Uncertain As Expiration Approaches

How long shall we wait? 12 years like with Roosevelt?

The reason people are "fear-mongering" is because this is not a new play. We've seen it before and we know how it turns out. So, until the policies start turning away from the things that don't work and toward the things that do work, don't look for any improvement in either the attitudes or the outcomes.

Sure, we get fed a bunch of lines that things are improving (and they are a little), but then when the revisions come out for the quarter and we get the real numbers they don't turn out to be a good as was sold to us.

So my characterization isn't "fear-mongering" is cautious dread. Economics isn't new and isn't reserved to the US shores. We've seen lots of things tried in lots of places. So, what happens when you do this and that....are well known. Some people don't like to listen for ideological reasons, but facts are facts.