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

[thereisnospoon]

Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?

Then what is the right figure?

Here's a real source, with factual, non-misleading information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf

Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?

Effective marginal rate....The rate paid on adjusted gross income is calculated.
Pretty simple stuff.
The marginal rate is what one would pay if they took only the standard deduction.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How did you arrive at that figure? And why?

I took 15% and added 10.

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

That's an opinion.
Post facts. Explain how higher taxes do not adversely affect the economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.

You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.

 

[AmazonTania]

However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.

No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.

Nobody is making that argument.

There are people who do make that argument.

 

[francoHFW]

EFFECTIVE 39%. So everyone gets richer at the same rate, not the rich getting 60X faster like now...

 

[tooAlive]

However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.

Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.

Nobody is making that argument.

By your logic Mitt Romney should have paid roughly a 30% effective tax rate. Why did he get away with paying only 14.1%?

I'll tell you why. Because he did the exact same thing they did back in the 50s.

Nobody ever paid those ridiculous tax rates. Ever. At least not here.

 

[ilia25]

However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.

Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.

Nobody is making that argument.

By your logic Mitt Romney should have paid roughly a 30% effective tax rate. Why did he get away with paying only 14.1%?

I'll tell you why. Because he did the exact same thing they did back in the 50s.

Nobody ever paid those ridiculous tax rates. Ever. At least not here.

Stop posting nonsense and start reading your own sources:
"So, when the top rate was 90 percent, it applied to only 1 percent of AGI." -- that means somebody's income was taxed at 90% marginal rate.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedf...eality.pdf.pdf

 

[ilia25]

However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.

No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.

Those making equivalent of a million, and paying 66% effective rate were below the top bracket. So there were more than a few hundreds of them.

Also, the fact that there weren't many millionaires back then is important on its own. The reason for taxing the rich in the first place is to reduce inequality. And 50s and 60s show that you don't need high inequality (i.e. we don't have to let the "job creators" to keep their millions) for the economy to grow fast.

 

[ilia25]

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.

You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.

For those math challenged and who can't google.

1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

Tax brackets in 1963:

$0 - $4,000 20.00%
$4,000 - $8,000 22.00%
$8,000 - $12,000 26.00%
$12,000 - $16,000 30.00%
$16,000 - $20,000 34.00%
$20,000 - $24,000 38.00%
$24,000 - $28,000 43.00%
$28,000 - $32,000 47.00%
$32,000 - $36,000 50.00%
$36,000 - $40,000 53.00%
$40,000 - $44,000 56.00%
$44,000 - $52,000 59.00%
$52,000 - $64,000 62.00%
$64,000 - $76,000 65.00%
$76,000 - $88,000 69.00%
$88,000 - $100,000 72.00%
$100,000 - $120,000 75.00%
$120,000 - $140,000 78.00%
$140,000 - $160,000 81.00%
$160,000 - $180,000 84.00%
$180,000 - $200,000 87.00%
$200,000 - $300,000 89.00%
$300,000 - $400,000 90.00%
$400,000 - and over 91.0%

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf

According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I say 10%.

The entirety which is collected by the local government.

3/4 of it is retained by the local government.
1/8 to the State government
1/8 to the federal government.

The local/state/federal governments may not collect any taxes if they reach a sufficiently large surplus, they must spend it first, before resuming taxation. No level of government may burrow money.

And the final catch: All of these transactions would be in Gold or Silver.

During times of Invasion (not just war), the tax distribution would look like this:

Local = 1/2
state = 1/8
federal = 3/8

All local and state surpluses would go to the federal government. This is only for times of invasion on our own land.

 

[ilia25]

Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?

Effective marginal rate....The rate paid on adjusted gross income is calculated.

Wrong answer.

Pretty simple stuff.
The marginal rate is what one would pay if they took only the standard deduction.

Even more nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

More specifically the high rates only apply to taxable income. There were a lot more tax shelters back when the rates were higher. The effective rates paid by the rich were actually lower back then than they are now. The reason was the plethora of tax shelters.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tell rich man you are gonna take all his money he'll just leave.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no 'fair' share.. because fairness is a subjective thing.. when it is 'fair' to you, it is most likely not 'fair' to someone else

This is why we need to get away from this 'fairness' bullshit in government and get to equality in treatment.. BLIND to situation, impact, outcome, whining, favoritism, pandering, etc.. when you have a true equality in treatment, you have no grounds to stand on in complaint.. while it may impact you in one way while it impacts me in another, there is no argument to be had that the government did it because of being in some favored group or status...

 

[NYcarbineer]

They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.

No. 'Taxable income' is what is left after deductions. The rate on taxable income that falls within any given bracket is the same for everyone.

 

[RKMBrown]

The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket. The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.

Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.

No. 'Taxable income' is what is left after deductions. The rate on taxable income that falls within any given bracket is the same for everyone.

Yeah but the exemptions/deductions available to everyone are not available to the folks that are stupid enough to have more income than the people want them to have. AMT is Nutz.

 

[saveliberty]

LIberals want you to send ALL your money into the government. Then they can decide what you need. By the way, leave their money alone.