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.
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%.
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:
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..
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".
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
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:
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.
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.
