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.
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:
I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
The one big thing about increasing the tax on the rich, is that it means that they just cut down on buying stuff. That "stuff" is what makes jobs for a lot of people. Cars, furniture, houses, swimming pools, clothes, etc. Its the kind of things that people like me make last and last because we can't afford to buy more. They even do things like redocorating and new paint on the walls. It's been 20 years since we bought paint. What would happen to all the painters if everyone did as we do?
One good example is what happened when there was a tax increase on Yachts. Rich folk just quit buying the things so often. Boat builders all over went under. They were not needed.
Let's give a cheer for the Rich! They make it possible for the rest of us to earn a salary. If they have to pay more taxes, There will be more without jobs... more people be eligible for government handouts. As long as the Rich have money, they will spend it.
However, there are too many dodges for the rich. Off shore accounts, certain tax exemptions, things like that. Tax should be fair. It shouldn't favor the Rich.
The one big thing about increasing the tax on the rich, is that it means that they just cut down on buying stuff. That "stuff" is what makes jobs for a lot of people. Cars, furniture, houses, swimming pools, clothes, etc. Its the kind of things that people like me make last and last because we can't afford to buy more. They even do things like redocorating and new paint on the walls. It's been 20 years since we bought paint. What would happen to all the painters if everyone did as we do?
Its not quite as simple as your answer makes it appear. Economists speak of a "propensity to consume, or spend" and a "propensity to save". People with the lowest incomes have a higher propensity to consume, or spend than people in high income groups do for obvious reasons. So, its a great simplification to treat a tax increase all income categories in the same manner. It doesn't have the same effect and its easy to demonstrate that. Wealthy people are far more likely to save their money if their tax rates are cut or remain low. Money that is saved is not spent and does not create jobs.
Therefore, tax increases directed at the wealthy are less likely to be harmful than tax increases on those who have a higher propensity to consume. Tax increases directed at those groups almost always produce a literal $1 for $1 tradeoff. Every dollar taxed is one less dollar spent at the car dealer, the restaurant, the gas station, the grocery store etc.
The next issue becomes what if there is simply no way to avoid raising taxes because of the deficit a country is in? The best way to raise taxes without harming the overall economy is to place those increases on the wealthier groups with as few increases as possible on poorer groups. No one wants a tax increase, but I don't accept the notion that our budget woes should be solved by cutting spending alone. Since, many entitlement programs (and I count social security and medicare among them) are more important for the poor and middle class, cutting these programs, in effect, places the burden of balancing the nation's budget on the backs of the poor. When taxes were higher--during the Clinton years--the country prospered. I'm not saying that's why, but it is obvious that it wasn't dragging the country down.
Finally, the reason why a payroll tax cut was good medicine for our economy is because income tax cuts do nothing for the poorest groups in our society. People earning $10 an hour aren't paying income taxes with the current tax structure that we have (which is largely the case because of tax changes made while George W. Bush was President). So, the only way we can give these groups any additional money to spend is to cut a tax they actually. This would be the payroll or social security tax.
Its a great deal more complicated than you make it seem.
For things like huge economic decisions, I wonder how much credibility anonymous internet posters really have. This is PhD/MBA stuff. It's like our cleaning lady commenting on the best way to perform brain surgery.
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:
I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax..
Then you either need more or better research. As one who earned well in the higher tax bracket days, the sheer number of deductions available would shock anyone under, say, 40 years old. State tax, local taxes, sales taxes (one could - and millions did - save every single receipt @ deductions) were all deductable @ one level or another.
The "real", or "what people actually paid" figure was about where it is now.
If you drop me, you, Bill Gates, Trump, Romney and Obama on an inhabited island and pick us 10 years later. I guarantee that we would "accumulate" just about the same amount of island "riches" unless one of us would be much more proficient at exploiting others. NO person in the wild, regardless of his smarts, hard work and conniving skills can accumulate 1000 more of the sprouts than the next guy unless he'll find the ways to use other people to pick those sprouts for him. Therefore, it's not the rich it's our social organization that allows them to put us to work and collect disproportionate share of nation' resources and wealth. Wealth buys power and election shows every 4 years to calm you all down.
The Rich develop mania of grandeur that discount lesser human beings and assigns all the acquisitive accomplishments to their superior smarts, the wonderful plan of sweet baby Jesus, and/or their superior genetic make up. I don't believe that our problems lie in the fact that the rich are not taxed enough. The problem is that our (i.e. Global) social organization allows small group of humans to appropriate bulk of society's resources and wealth while depriving our lives in so many ways. You cannot fix these issues by adjusting taxation rates.
It's a well known fact that great inequality affect human health in very negative ways. All the propaganda and mind control in the world cannot override our genetic memories and our sense of what is fair. At some point societies cannot take inequality and explode/annihilate. Lower classes either revolt or they just quit maintaining unjust social order with their labor and blood. The owning elites either establish dictatorships and banana republics or they get annihilated by internal and/or external forces. There are plenty of examples in history.
One could argue that we need to maintain stupendous inequality so folks on the top could deliver us from all the evils, after all, only lesser beings can be "encouraged" to work for $10/hr. However, we live in truly unique times of human history. Greedy, self-centered, self-worshiping elites funding Eugenics projects and mass sterilizations, we had that before. Today, our psychopathic owning elites lead entire mankind and biosphere into oblivion in order to protect their share of wealth and power on a sinking Titanic. It's safe to say that owning elites lost their utilities are are outright dangerous for human survival. Again, you cannot fix this by adjusting taxation rates.
For a "normal" human being wealth is required to lead normal life. You reach certain level of income and above that no additional $ make you any happier. For those who reach the top - accumulating wealth and power is their normal life, they cannot have enough. Circumstances may force higher taxation rates upon them, but they will take everything back and more later. You can observe post New Deal reconquista with your own eyes. Hierarchy or survival. Whom I'm kidding, human kind is doomed. Our elites, are totally blind, psychopatic and inept, worse - they managed to raise perfect wage slaves for themselves, dumbed down, disconnected & isolated, easily programmable and gutless. I think mankind is as good as dead.
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:
I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
Sure, I'll correct you. Total income of all taxpayers for the year 2009 was $7.8 trillion and the total income paid was $865 billion. Total income of the top 1% was $1.3 trillion. They paid 24% of this in income taxes, or $318 billion. If we raised their average rate to 50% (more punitive than raising their marginal rate to 50%) they'd pay $662 billion in income taxes. Since the deficits are running at a trillion dollars a year, we'd still be $338 billion short. To get the money exclusively from the top 1% of income earners, we'd have to raise their average rate to 73%.
Here's a fun fact for you to contemplate while you're thinking of ways to cover the shortfall: with the federal debt at $16 trillion and climbing at $1 trillion a year, our total federal debt will be $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office. If interest rates on that debt rise to 4-1/2% on average, the total annual interest cost will be $900 billion and exceed the total amount of federal income tax collected. At that point, you can try confiscate all the income of the top 1% and you'll still be short.
Interest expense on the federal debt, not entitlement programs, is what will probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Sure, I'll correct you. Total income of all taxpayers for the year 2009 was $7.8 trillion and the total income paid was $865 billion. Total income of the top 1% was $1.3 trillion. They paid 24% of this in income taxes, or $318 billion. If we raised their average rate to 50% (more punitive than raising their marginal rate to 50%) they'd pay $662 billion in income taxes. Since the deficits are running at a trillion dollars a year, we'd still be $338 billion short. To get the money exclusively from the top 1% of income earners, we'd have to raise their average rate to 73%.
Here's a fun fact for you to contemplate while you're thinking of ways to cover the shortfall: with the federal debt at $16 trillion and climbing at $1 trillion a year, our total federal debt will be $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office. If interest rates on that debt rise to 4-1/2% on average, the total annual interest cost will be $900 billion and exceed the total amount of federal income tax collected. At that point, you can try confiscate all the income of the top 1% and you'll still be short.
Interest expense on the federal debt, not entitlement programs, is what will probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back.[/quote]
In the early 40's CORPORATIONS paid 60% of all the income tax collected by the United States. Over the years they have found ways to continue to reduce the proportion of tax revenue paid to the nation, while expanding CORPORATE welfare in a multitude of ways. I think it was GE that last year made billions of dollars of income, but by shuttling the profits through offshore subsidiaries paid only 14 million in tax. It was some Fortune 500 company, if not GE.
And corporations THRIVED through the 40's and 50's despite that "terrible" tax burden. The country itself had less poor because living wages were paid, less money was concentrated in the hands of a few, and everyone got to share the wealth in some fashion. It is the bane of capitalism that sooner or later money begins to accumulate more heavily at the top, there is an increasing number of poor and destitute, and eventually a revolution occurs (e.g. the French Revolution).
It's not that history is doomed to repeat itself, it's that relatively intelligent people choose to ignore history and let it repeat itself. Our nation is moving toward that end. Sooner or later the increasing number of "have nots" will decide they've had enough of having not.
As for how the top 1% fare, read the chart below: Since the mid-1980s the top one percent of income tax filers has paid an increasing share of federal income tax, except during recessions. Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The top one percent of income tax filers has seen its income increase from 6.4 percent to 14.3 percent of GDP in the period from 1986 to 2007. But the share of federal income tax paid has increased from 25.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 1986 to a 40.4 percent share of the total in 2007. When recessions hit, the rich earn less income and pay a smaller share of taxes. The income of the richest 1 percent dipped from 13.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to 9.3 percent of GDP in 2001, while their federal income tax payments dipped from 37.4 percent in 2000 to 33.7 percent in the recession year of 2002. In the Great Recession of 2007-09, the top one percent share of income fell from 14.3 percent of GDP to 9.9 percent of GDP. Their income tax share fell from 40.4 percent to 36.7 percent. See IRS data here.
Basically, if you are making money, you are definitely paying more of the income tax collected. The poorest people have seen a decline in their income tax liability because of a corresponding decline in the amount of income they make:
The Poor Pay Less
In good times and bad, the poor report less income and pay less federal income tax. Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The lower half of income tax filers have reported a smaller and smaller share of income over the period 1986 to 2007. In 1986 they reported 9.4 percent of GDP on their federal income tax forms; by 2007 this had shrunk to 7.7 percent of GDP. Income tax share declined by over 50 percent, from 6.5 percent share of total federal personal income tax paid in 1986 to 2.9 percent share of tax paid in 2007. In the Great Recession of 2007-09 the share of federal income tax paid by the lower half has continued to decline. Income of the lower half declined to 7.40 percent of GDP in 2009 and federal income tax share declined to 2.25 percent of total collections. "
Regardless, sooner or later, there will be a revolt of the poorest people who will want to "even" things out. God help us all, rich, poor, or in between, when it happens.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-02-2012 at 03:31 PM..
In the early 40's CORPORATIONS paid 60% of all the income tax collected by the United States. Over the years they have found ways to continue to reduce the proportion of tax revenue paid to the nation, while expanding CORPORATE welfare in a multitude of ways. I think it was GE that last year made billions of dollars of income, but by shuttling the profits through offshore subsidiaries paid only 14 million in tax. It was some Fortune 500 company, if not GE.
And corporations THRIVED through the 40's and 50's despite that "terrible" tax burden. The country itself had less poor because living wages were paid, less money was concentrated in the hands of a few, and everyone got to share the wealth in some fashion. It is the bane of capitalism that sooner or later money begins to accumulate more heavily at the top, there is an increasing number of poor and destitute, and eventually a revolution occurs (e.g. the French Revolution).
It's not that history is doomed to repeat itself, it's that relatively intelligent people choose to ignore history and let it repeat itself. Our nation is moving toward that end. Sooner or later the increasing number of "have nots" will decide they've had enough of having not.
As for how the top 1% fare, read the chart below: Since the mid-1980s the top one percent of income tax filers has paid an increasing share of federal income tax, except during recessions.
Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The top one percent of income tax filers has seen its income increase from 6.4 percent to 14.3 percent of GDP in the period from 1986 to 2007. But the share of federal income tax paid has increased from 25.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 1986 to a 40.4 percent share of the total in 2007. When recessions hit, the rich earn less income and pay a smaller share of taxes. The income of the richest 1 percent dipped from 13.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to 9.3 percent of GDP in 2001, while their federal income tax payments dipped from 37.4 percent in 2000 to 33.7 percent in the recession year of 2002. In the Great Recession of 2007-09, the top one percent share of income fell from 14.3 percent of GDP to 9.9 percent of GDP. Their income tax share fell from 40.4 percent to 36.7 percent. See IRS data here.
Basically, if you are making money, you are definitely paying more of the income tax collected. The poorest people have seen a decline in their income tax liability because of a corresponding decline in the amount of income they make:
The Poor Pay Less
In good times and bad, the poor report less income and pay less federal income tax.
Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The lower half of income tax filers have reported a smaller and smaller share of income over the period 1986 to 2007. In 1986 they reported 9.4 percent of GDP on their federal income tax forms; by 2007 this had shrunk to 7.7 percent of GDP. Income tax share declined by over 50 percent, from 6.5 percent share of total federal personal income tax paid in 1986 to 2.9 percent share of tax paid in 2007. In the Great Recession of 2007-09 the share of federal income tax paid by the lower half has continued to decline. Income of the lower half declined to 7.40 percent of GDP in 2009 and federal income tax share declined to 2.25 percent of total collections. "
Regardless, sooner or later, there will be a revolt of the poorest people who will want to "even" things out. God help us all, rich, poor, or in between, when it happens.
I think the part that's missing here is what happened to the income of the bottom half in dollars in real terms over the period. I am certain that it has actually increased. This is the great conflict around the idea of what is "fair" in terms of income distribution. Is it more fair to have a rising income, but a smaller share of the total, or is it more fair to have a large percentage of the total, but a stable or declining income? I think most people would say they would rather have more money, regardless of the portion of the total it represents. Would you not agree?
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:
I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
Maybe you should do some more research first. It was NOT a flat 50% on all income. In fact, it wasn't 50%. It was a higher tax rate on earnings ABOVE a certain dollar amount.
Kinda changes everything, doesn't it?
Here's the deal: You should NOT gulp down the KoolAid from billionaire bull$hitters like Warren Buffett - who is always yelling about making the rich pay more in taxes, but has his income set up in such a way that those higher taxes would never affect him.
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.
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.
It's not just personal income tax
Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
