| Posted by | Message |
JohnnyKilroy 
North Carolina Fan
Member since Oct 2012
5148 posts
 Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/24/12 at 11:33 pm to mograyback)
quote:
Not my area of expertise. I could be misinterpreting this..
Clearly.
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback 
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 12:53 am to JohnnyKilroy)
quote:
Clearly.
Wait am I wrong though?
Was the income tax not in the 90% range during the 50s?
LINK
This post was edited on 11/25 at 12:54 am
|
| Back to top | |
SlowFlowPro 
Stanford Fan
Equality is a circle, not a =
Member since Jan 2004
263563 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 1:57 am to mograyback)
quote:
Was the income tax not in the 90% range during the 50s?
the highest marginal rate was that high, but deductions were plentiful and tax shelters were common
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 2:03 am to SlowFlowPro)
quote:
the highest marginal rate was that high, but deductions were plentiful and tax shelters were common
Oh so the welfare hypocrisy started way back then.. always thought it funny when people could 'write off' and get breaks while complaining about people taking handouts.
|
| Back to top | |
NC_Tigah 
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
40231 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 2:39 am to mograyback)
quote:
Oh so the welfare hypocrisy started way back then.. always thought it funny when people could 'write off' and get breaks while complaining about people taking handouts.
Of note about the 1950's when the top marginal rate was 91%
- The lowest tax bracket was 20% ($0 - $4K/yr)
- Income of $32K/yr was taxed at 50%
- Income of $44K/yr was taxed at 59%
quote:
The problem of tax expenditures was first identified in the 1960s by Harvard law professor Stanley Surrey, who went to work for John F. Kennedy in 1961 as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for tax policy. At that time the top marginal income tax rate was 91%, meaning that reducing one's taxable income by $1 saved 91 cents in taxes for those in the top bracket, while earning $1 of additional income netted them only 9 cents. For some people it was worth spending 90 cents to reduce their taxable income by $1, which gave rise to many wasteful tax shelters designed to produce nothing except tax deductions.
Obviously, this not only encouraged rich people to mine the Tax Code aggressively for tax loopholes but also to pressure Congress to enact new ones. As a consequence, effective tax rates--those people actually paid in terms of taxes as a share of income--diverged sharply from statutory rates. In effect, the high statutory rates implied that the rich were being soaked, while the reality was that the actual tax rates that they paid were much lower.
There was a widespread perception that many rich people were paying little if any federal income taxes. A popular book during this era was The Great Treasury Raid by Philip M. Stern
Turns out those rich folks you assume were paying 91% were instead paying their Congressmen to set up loopholes and tax shelters.
How do you think that worked out for the $32K/yr 50% taxbracket fellow?
Nitwits like Krugman who want to go back to the 50's taxcode need to take the time and actually examine why we moved away from that code in the first place.
Put another way, at the top end, do you want the money invested in the economy or in wasteful tax shelters?
For middle America, do you want rates of 50% knowing there are tax sheltered rich folks who'll find ways to pay nothing?
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 2:50 am to NC_Tigah)
quote:
NC_Tigah
Why did you respond to me as if I've said I support this type of tax code?
I've simply injected a bit of history into the thread, that is all.
Wasn't I eluding to the tax shelters and deductions in the comment you quoted of mine? I'm confused why you bolded that information in the quoted paragraph as If it should be news to me.. (scratching head).
This post was edited on 11/25 at 2:51 am
|
| Back to top | |
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
40231 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 3:46 am to mograyback)
re: Effective rate
In 2010
- Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an effective rate of 4.8%
- Those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7%.
- Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits.
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 4:05 am to NC_Tigah)
quote:
In 2010
- Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an effective rate of 4.8%
- Those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7%.
- Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits.
What in Gods name are you talking about?
I'd ask if you're drunk, but you're behaving more like someone on crack. This is just bizarre.
|
| Back to top | |
foshizzle
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
25163 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 5:11 am to Rex)
quote:
For starters, see my discussion on taxing capital gains at ordinary income tax rates.
Why would that be fair given that corporations are already taxed before capital gains come into play? You're saying it is fair for investors to pay taxes twice?
|
| Back to top | |
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
40231 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 5:37 am to mograyback)
quote:
I'd ask if you're drunk, but you're behaving more like someone on crack. This is just bizarre.
Posting current effective IT rates is bizarre?
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 5:45 am to NC_Tigah)
quote:
Posting current effective IT rates is bizarre?
What relevance do they have to what I've posted? It makes no sense.
|
| Back to top | |
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
40231 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 5:53 am to mograyback)
quote:
quote:
Posting current effective IT rates is bizarre?
What relevance do they have to what I've posted? It makes no sense.
quote:
quote:
Effectively taxed? Not even close. Maybe half that.
Not my area of expertise.
|
| Back to top | |
mograyback
Missouri Fan
Red Patoka Sea
Member since Jul 2011
5486 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 5:59 am to NC_Tigah)
quote:
NC_Tigah
You never answered this question I asked you a few posts back.
"Wasn't I eluding to the tax shelters and deductions in the comment you quoted of mine? I'm confused why you bolded that information in the quoted paragraph as If it should be news to me.. (scratching head)."
What are you even trying to point out to me? It seems like you're trying to make a point that when the rich were taxed at 90% there were ways for them to not actually have to pay that much. If this is the case, you're a special kind of dumb because I've said that myself now multiple times.
|
| Back to top | |
cssamerican 
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2011
1769 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 7:44 am to Negative Nomad)
quote:
How about the elite tax? Tax every dollar over 5 Million 90%. It effects only the elite, if your bringing in 5 million a year you are not a job creator you are a hoarder of profits. No one else pays income tax at all, just have The Fair Tax. This way everyone is treated equally and we stick the rich
Cut lose the dead weight. We can start with you.
I was being sarcastic 
Well, at least to a degree...My sarcasm is what at least half in this country believes based on the passed election. So, in a way the best you and I can hope for at this point is some form of a fair or flat tax for individuals, a low corporate tax with some luxury style tax for what many would call the insanely wealthy. In this type of scenario most everyone pays a little and the very rich just become a little less very rich. And you could easily argue that it would jump start the economy by easing or eliminating corporate taxes.
If I had my choice I would just advocate the Fair Tax and do away with personal and corporate income tax completely, but as a realist I know that is not going to happen without giving up the super rich.
If we want tax reform in today's political climate the Republicans will have to sell out the people who make millions per year. Not taxing the rich is a losing political battle, just adjust the definition of rich to over a million a year and get the best reform you can get. Otherwise we will continue to lose elections and eventually everyone who makes over $250,000 will get completely screwed.
|
| Back to top | |
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
12705 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 7:59 am to Rex)
quote:
What's fair is that which is decided democratically.
Then outlawing abortion is fair, and so are bans on same sex marriage.
|
| Back to top | |
Poodlebrain
LSU Fan
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
12705 posts
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 8:13 am to Rex)
quote:
Because I'm certain it would be both fairer and substantial.
You are wrong. Increasing capital gains rates have historically resulted in much lower amounts of capital gains being reported since taxpayers have discretion when they will recognize the income and pay any taxes. The economic effect is that investor capital stagnates in existing ventures and is not available for investment in new ventures, and the return on investment in new ventures is reduced such that investors are less willing to risk their capital. This slows economic growth.
Are you really certain slower growth is fairer because that is what you are advocating? I'll agree with you that the economic effect will be substantial. Just ask Bill Clinton about the substantial effect of reducing capital gains rates.
|
| Back to top | |
Athanatos 
Vanderbilt Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
5619 posts
Online
| re: The "rich" need to pay their "fair share"! How, exactly? (Posted on 11/25/12 at 8:30 am to mograyback)
Allude vs. Elude
Please don't make that mistake again.
|
| Back to top | |
