U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:14 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 3,837,063 times
Reputation: 849

Advertisements



Please note that he uses Obama's own Economist's findings
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:32 AM
 
10,115 posts, read 6,735,277 times
Reputation: 3408
This is actually good news for your liberal friends who want to raise taxes on the wealthy, because the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate are two different things. . Most people in higher brackets don't actually pay that much--the marginal tax rate--and people earning income from capital gains only pay at 15%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,244,752 times
Reputation: 5556
Given that our effective tax rate is about 15% of GDP, this is interesting.

We earn low six figures, own a house and have one kid, we paid about 8.9% in taxes last year. No tricks. Nothing fancy, just my tax rate. The mortgage interest deduction was a huge factor.

Romney earned 8 figures and paid 13%.

So moving to about 15-25% for folks like me and 25-35% for folks like Romney would go a very long way toward fixing our deficit problems.

By the way, this is a conceptual model with strong linkages to Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, and co. While the notion that revenue as a function of tax rate would follow a unimodal curve sounds likely, the shape of the that curve, and the particular location of the "optimal" tax rate is quite variable. Interesting article at Wickipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

One thing that I have read repeatedly is the rapid gain in revenues during the "roaring 20s" with cuts in the top tax rates. However, the 1920s can never be separated from the 1930s in my mind. History shows that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

Last edited by Fiddlehead; 09-11-2012 at 11:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:47 AM
 
2,921 posts, read 5,121,930 times
Reputation: 1489
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800 View Post


Please note that he uses Obama's own Economist's findings
So you think Romney should pay 33%? I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:50 AM
 
5,787 posts, read 3,837,063 times
Reputation: 849
This reminds me of Oregon passing huge tax increases on the price of gasoline......


People started buying LESS gasoline and therefore the tax revenues dropped drastically.

They eventually learned their lesson and lowered the gasoline tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: NC
1,673 posts, read 1,481,825 times
Reputation: 523
So the top rate should be 33% with no deductions outside of charity. Makes sense. What is the closest thing to that? Clinton era tax rates?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 12:06 PM
 
5,787 posts, read 3,837,063 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999 View Post
So the top rate should be 33% with no deductions outside of charity. Makes sense. What is the closest thing to that? Clinton era tax rates?

That's only IF you didn't pay any taxes other than Federal Taxes.

Plus, you should also want the people who now pay nothing or next to nothing in Federal Taxes to be raised to 33% as well. It would be them paying "THEIR FAIR SHARE".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 05:22 PM
 
17,026 posts, read 11,395,151 times
Reputation: 9000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
So you think Romney should pay 33%? I agree.
great post

I guess it is not surprising that liberals are wrong. When have they ever been right about anything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, MD
3,241 posts, read 3,151,302 times
Reputation: 3010
The Laffer curve is a joke bought wholesale by right wingers who need simple minded solutions to complex entities like economics. Rather than actually reading about the complexities of a large economy they literally need a little picture to explain how economics work
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2012, 07:56 PM
 
10,115 posts, read 6,735,277 times
Reputation: 3408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Given that our effective tax rate is about 15% of GDP, this is interesting.

We earn low six figures, own a house and have one kid, we paid about 8.9% in taxes last year. No tricks. Nothing fancy, just my tax rate. The mortgage interest deduction was a huge factor.

Romney earned 8 figures and paid 13%.

So moving to about 15-25% for folks like me and 25-35% for folks like Romney would go a very long way toward fixing our deficit problems.

By the way, this is a conceptual model with strong linkages to Dick Cheney, Rumsfield, and co. While the notion that revenue as a function of tax rate would follow a unimodal curve sounds likely, the shape of the that curve, and the particular location of the "optimal" tax rate is quite variable. Interesting article at Wickipedia:

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One thing that I have read repeatedly is the rapid gain in revenues during the "roaring 20s" with cuts in the top tax rates. However, the 1920s can never be separated from the 1930s in my mind. History shows that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
Couldn't rep you, but great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top