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.
That "top 1% paying way too much in taxes" BS really irks me.
Yes, you make more, you pay more taxes. Why does this shock anyone?! The only thing shocking about that "revelation" is how much the 1% make in income compared to the rest of the country.
Actually...the 1% is a nice sound bite, but really the 1% 9/10 of them are professionals, or small business owners working hard. Go look at the .1 or .01% really. Thats where most of the new income goes to.
LOL...sooo...how about "all income (earned and unearned)above 250K is subject to a 36% rate, no deductions allowed on that income, would be fine?
No it's not okay with me. In my view, God only asked for 10%. Who is Washington DC to ask for 3.6 times what God asked for?
I am not one of the wealthy, but I want a low tax rate on the wealthy in order to incentivize the next Henry Ford, Bill Gates, or Gaston Glock. My family and I have benefited from all of these three in my lifetime, especially Gaston Glock without whom I might be rotting away in a casket right now.
But this is really off topic. The topic is the myth of the effective 91% rate and the economic boom of the 1950's.
No it's not okay with me. In my view, God only asked for 10%. Who is Washington DC to ask for 3.6 times what God asked for?
I am not one of the wealthy, but I want a low tax rate on the wealthy in order to incentivize the next Henry Ford, Bill Gates, or Gaston Glock. My family and I have benefited from all of these three in my lifetime, especially Gaston Glock without whom I might be rotting away in a casket right now.
But this is really off topic. The topic is the myth of the effective 91% rate and the economic boom of the 1950's.
OK so back on topic. whats the myth? that the top tax rate was 91%? Thats true. Or that the economy did fine? Cause thats also true.
OK so back on topic. whats the myth? that the top tax rate was 91%? Thats true. Or that the economy did fine? Cause thats also true.
I refer you back to post #1. The 91% rate was paid by few if any. And the U.S. economy did fine for reasons that will hopefully not be replicated in the future.
I refer you back to post #1. The 91% rate was paid by few if any. And the U.S. economy did fine for reasons that will hopefully not be replicated in the future.
Again, theres no myth here. Thats known. Just like today where very few at the top pay the top rate. There is no myth here at all other then in the OP's mind.
Actually what I find interesting is that the left only talks about income tax, but the rich are not getting rich by having a high income. They are getting rich by capital gains.
So what would a 91% tax rate achieve today? Apart from damaging the economy, it would just lead to even more people earning money on capital gains.
Whenever the topic of tax rates comes up, a poster will inevitably chime in with the factoid that the top rate on the very rich was 91% under Ike in the 1950's. And always will be added the observation that it was a time of economic boom in the U.S. This is misleading and deceptive for several reasons.
My first source is liberal darling economists Piketty and Saez. They point out that the tax structure was much different in the 1950's than today. so that comparing the top marginal rate now to then is an apples-oranges comparison. A comparison of effective tax rates on the top 1% shows that they were in the same ballpark as today. The effective rate was 31% in 1960 (with the 91% top nominal rate) and 24% in 2004 (top nominal rate=36%).
Secondly, the 1950's were a unique era for the U.S. economy, as detailed by Edward Conard in his recent book on the US economy. First of all, Europe and Japan had been devastated by WWII while the US went untouched other than Pearl Harbor. And according to Conard, the US education system was unique at the time: "In 1955, the United States enrolled 80 percent of its fifteen-to-nineteen year-olds in school full tiem compared to only 10 percent to 20 percent in Europe."
Conard concludes:
(p. 13 Unintended Consequences: why everything you've been told about the economy is wrong by Edward Conard.
Michael Medved has a good op-ed on the issue, where he points out that taxes are only half of the equation. According to Medved, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 16.5% in 1956, and 24.3 in 2012. Probably many conservatives would be happy to go back to the tax system of 1956 if we could also go back to the spending structure of 1956.
Finally, while the US economy boomed in the 50's, there is the question of whether an even bigger boom might have occurred but for the 91% rate. Ronald Reagan was working as an actor during that time and recalled:
(from The Age of Reagan by Steven F. Hayward, p. 67).
Not much of a myth. What you're posting may be new to you, but it's common knowledge to most people (left or right).
Actually what I find interesting is that the left only talks about income tax, but the rich are not getting rich by having a high income. They are getting rich by capital gains.
So what would a 91% tax rate achieve today? Apart from damaging the economy, it would just lead to even more people earning money on capital gains.
Because at the mention of taxing earned and unearned income the right goes even more frothing at the mouth mad? But you are right...get rid of carried interest, and treating the income the same would help a lot.
Because at the mention of taxing earned and unearned income the right goes even more frothing at the mouth mad? But you are right...get rid of carried interest, and treating the income the same would help a lot.
Of course they do, thats what their donors are paying them for. But Republicans are not alone. Democrats are also being paid by donors to not talk about capital gains. Thats a shame, because capital gains is the real cause of America inequality.
I think raising the income tax is the wrong way to go. It won't lead to much tax revenue, it hinders new businesses, and it gives the wrong signals, like it did in France. If it is politically impossible to increase the capital gains tax, then I would support a gst on luxury goods or a mansion tax.
Of course they do, thats what their donors are paying them for. But Republicans are not alone. Democrats are also being paid by donors to not talk about capital gains. Thats a shame, because capital gains is the real cause of America inequality.
I think raising the income tax is the wrong way to go. It won't lead to much tax revenue, it hinders new businesses, and it gives the wrong signals, like it did in France. If it is politically impossible to increase the capital gains tax, then I would support a gst on luxury goods or a mansion tax.
They also go insane over the estate tax, calling it a emotionally laden "death tax". sigh.
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.
