Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12637
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:46 pm

I still don't get your point.

The 1950s, 60s, and 70s were prosperous decades. I know because I was there.

As your chart shows, the top marginal tax rate was way high during that period.

Things started to get weird during Reagan (1980s) and we had our first "energy crisis" and our first homeless people since the Great Depression (when they had other names). The economy has never been the same since then.

And that was exactly when the tax rate on the wealthy in your chart started to drop.

If there's any causal connection here, it runs contrary to what you are imagining. Prosperity and high taxes (and a high quality of life) historically went hand in hand, and less prosperity and a decidedly inferior quality of life for people at the bottom of the economic ladder likewise went hand in hand with much lower taxes on the top.

What's different for people at the bottom these days? Here are some examples:

-- Earlier, a man with a factory job could support a family that included quite a few kids, more kids than people have today. His wife stayed home. Nobody could do this now. Quite often, he was even able to pay off a mortgage. Today doing that is out of the question for a laborer.

-- Students graduated from college without student loans to pay off, and nearly everybody who graduated found a job that used their education (not working in a coffee shop) or went to graduate school. I don't remember one single person from my college class who moved back in with their parents following graduation.

-- A single woman with an entry level job at the University could buy a house (on a conventional, 30-year non-adjustable mortgage) with two apartments in it, rent one out, and live in the other without scrimping. I know because that woman was me.

The lower economic levels today are doing far worse today than people in any of these three situations did then. The top? Cry me a river.

That's why I believe the top can be taxed more than the piddly amount they are now without wrecking the economy. It's already been done.

And that's also why I believe taxing the bottom levels higher than they're already being taxed is completely out of line. Someone near the bottom in the 1970s had a decent quality of life. Someone at the bottom today has to work several jobs, can't afford to live in their own place, probably can't afford a decent car, and needs to cut coupons to get groceries (at best). If you haven't been here to see this gradual decline, it's hard to explain how extreme the change has been. And you want to tax these people relatively MORE while letting people at high economic levels glide?

The total amount of tax revenue isn't the whole story. Where we get that revenue from is just as important. And "trickle down" just plain hasn't worked. We've proved it.

Remember without people who can buy and consume, the economy grinds more and more slowly. If people buy old used cars instead of new ones, it hurts the auto industry, it hurts travel and tourism, it hurts home sales in the suburbs, it hurts all over. Why would we do this to ourselves?

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Cornbread » Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:52 pm

pjbogart wrote:It may come as a great shock to most Republicans, but progressive income taxes are not engineered solely to be "fair."

Don't know about most republicans, but I'd bet by far most conservatives consider a 'progressive' tax punishing success. The more economic success one has, the greater percentage of it is confiscated.
Logic dictates it is little more than a redistribution of income.
But this should be no surprise as "progressive" and "socialist" are really the same being.

If you need to collect $100 million and you want to do so in a way that maximizes economic activity, you tax the people who spend the smallest percentage of their income and then give rebates and credits to the people who spend the highest percentage of their income.

Yup, it's redistribution of income, taking from those with more and giving it to those with less. Isn't that marxism? Didn't karl say that?

But anyway, you want government to SPEND $100,000,000, but "spent in a way to maximize economic activity"?

Um, what do you think people with disposable income do with it?
Hint: lower economic levels tend to be consumers with it while middle to upper income levels tend to invest it, put their money to work. And this money seeks a (rate of) return, so someone wants to borrow it and start a business, where they will hire people, etc.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Detritus » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Rich Schultz wrote:Look again, The red line on the first chart is the rate not revenue.

Yes, that is my point. What is your point?

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4890
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby gargantua » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:56 am

Cornbread wrote:
pjbogart wrote:It may come as a great shock to most Republicans, but progressive income taxes are not engineered solely to be "fair."

Don't know about most republicans, but I'd bet by far most conservatives consider a 'progressive' tax punishing success.
Um, what do you think people with disposable income do with it?
Hint: lower economic levels tend to be consumers with it while middle to upper income levels tend to invest it, put their money to work. And this money seeks a (rate of) return, so someone wants to borrow it and start a business, where they will hire people, etc.

The assertion that most conservatives consider the progressive income tax as punishing success is nothing more than ideology. Go back and read Snoqueen's post. The 60's had a much more progressive income tax structure, AND people in general were relatively more prosperous. This is what is known as a fact, rightist.

Speaking of facts, if only your assertion that upper income levels "put their money to work by helping people start businesses and hire people" were true. It's 2012, rightist. Now they put it into financial instruments and other derivatives that likely as not produce nothing....other than returns for the investor.

peripat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby peripat » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:18 am

Pretty basic- you tax the people who have money and don't spend it rather than the people who spend if you really want to improve the economy.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12637
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby snoqueen » Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:45 pm

It's nice and quiet around here.

Here's an op-ed discussing the consequences for the middle class if today's trends continue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

If you think this is where we want to go, tell us why.

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Cornbread » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:31 pm

snoqueen wrote:The 1950s, 60s, and 70s were prosperous decades. I know because I was there.

The 50s and 60s were, the 70s was the start of the decline. But that was the first decade of drug use being normal, so most missed the dead 70s.

As your chart shows, the top marginal tax rate was way high during that period.

And funding for government mandates abortions at $0.00.
Do you know there were a lot of other things going on (in any era) to just pick some statistic out of vacuum?
As more and more people ate fast food, the US started to prosper. Fact.
So should we all eat more junk food?

Things started to get weird during Reagan (1980s) and we had our first "energy crisis"

I'd guess your definition of "weird" is a positive, conservative in charge of this nation.
Oh, and the "first 'energy crisis'" wasn't in the 1980s--it was in 1973.
Maybe you should put me on the ignore feature as others have begged you to? That way, you can continue to think you really are "educated" as leftists in madison fancy themselves to be. :D

and our first homeless people since the Great Depression (when they had other names).

I'll just guess you've not been around much and/or done a lot, but I hitch hiked around the country a few times in that era, so I know a little bit about hippies, tramps and bums. Oh, and vets like I was, just kicking it.

I think what you're trying to say is 'the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill" caused homelessness. It didn't--it just dumped the "mentally ill" out of central colony and on to the streets in the name of, well, I forgot what leftist/people's BS slogan they used. Oh, and that also started in the early 1970s.

Can I charge you for this education on the world you proclaim to be familiar with? The leftists on this board should pay me to be here as the few of us non leftists here are their only glimpse of the real world, the one outside of their closed mindedness.

The economy has never been the same since then.

:D :D :D YES! The lil corporation finally got something right. :D

Now....."Why?"

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12637
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby snoqueen » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:06 pm

How about comments on the other link I posted, since you're on a roll tonight?

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Cornbread » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:18 pm

gargantua wrote:The assertion that most conservatives consider the progressive income tax as punishing success is nothing more than ideology.

I don't know if I'm asserting anything, but what I am SAYING is, if one makes more money and more money is then taken from them (as an overall percentage), then how can someone think that is anything other than punishing success?

If the less money one makes, the more money is taken from them, wouldn't you consider that as a way of punishing the poor? So why wouldn't it be the more money one makes the more money is taken from them also be away of punishing their success?

Go back and read Snoqueen's post.

I've been reading her posts. I don't need to re-read them. She's stating generalities that are at best, tangentially connected, at worst, not correct.
But some of what she posts is, "spot on" as the folks say these days. :D

She seems like a good person, well intentioned.

[President Reagan]
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.


My only difference with Reagan is that leftists CHOOSE to be ignorant--and try to pressure others to be ignorant also.

The 60's...people in general were relatively more prosperous. This is what is known as a fact, rightist.

Why?
I remember when a painter could buy house and support his wife and kids on just painting.
What changed? Did we not tax "the rich" enough? (hint: that's 'revenue', not spending).

if only your assertion that upper income levels "put their money to work by helping people start businesses and hire people" were true.

Actually anyone that has any "profit" (what's left over after they pay their bills/expenses), unless they do the italian thing of sticking it under their mattress, does something with it. Stick it in the bank? What do you think the bank does with it? They invest it. What do you think the pensions/IRAs do with the money they are given? They invest it.

Purchasing something for consumption is only one part of the "investing" in a free market. They enable retail businesses to open, sales people to be hired, manufacturing facilities to be built, factory people to be hired, drivers to be hired to deliver it, and government to collect all the sales and income taxes along the way.

But where do you think the money comes from to open that widget store that starts the whole thing? We all can't make dream catchers in our basement and have this economy work--it takes investors and that means people with money and/or institutions that has been given money to invest and make a...dare I say.....profit.

If no one (individuals, businesses, government) makes a profit, the whole economy will collapse. We have been heading down this bad road for a while. Now we are "printing" money (bonds) and we ourselves are buying them (the fed). And the isolated leftist college clown in charge wants to keep going on this accelerated pace.

Personally, I don't see any way out of this other than to become england--but at least they are allowed to harvest their own (oil) resources for sale (north sea crude).

England's national health service is the fifth largest employer in the world.
Fifth largest at 1,700,000 employees...................IN THE WORLD...and they PRODUCE NOTHING.

It's 2012, rightist. Now they put it into financial instruments and other derivatives that likely as not produce nothing....other than returns for the investor.


Derivatives, stripped coupons/bonds, have been around for 30 years, yes, since the 1980s. Same with 'mortgage backed securities'. Nothing new to see here.

If your concern is "produce nothing...other than returns for the investor" you should climb all aboard in an effort to get the government (via taxpayer money) to guarantee deposits which are then used for investment. Get's sort of complicated from this point:

Government guarantees safety of money invested
Entity loans money for mortgage
Mortgage is made
Mortgage is bought (usually by govt), but is backed by govt (taxpayers)
Most of the mortgages were junk/fraud which lead to overpriced houses, so when the "bubble burst" (pyramid scheme), the taxpayers were left holding the bills because "we" guaranteed the safety of it all.

GOVERNMENT WAS AND IS THE PROBLEM.

And I won't even go into giving hundreds of millions of dollars to private industries to bail out unions. That's outright fraud and money laundering.

For others....sorry I wasn't able to break it down into a few words. ;)

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Cornbread » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:40 pm

snoqueen wrote:How about comments on the other link I posted, since you're on a roll tonight?

Sorry, catching up. ;) Massamino or whatever his name is may scold you for that, btw. ;)
I'll do this on the fly as my wife is getting bored enough to play with the crazy cat.

Already, the economic effects of a union-free America are glaringly apparent: an economically stagnant or downwardly mobile middle class, a steady clawing-back of job-related health and retirement benefits and ever-rising economic inequality.


We aren't a union free nation. We can still start a union, join a union or not and not. Private sector unions have been in decline due to a variety of reasons, all market driven. Government unions should never exist, per FDR...and most due to their monopoly position.

Government is a great example of inefficiency, waste, an decay, so let's talk about the private sector.
In the private sector, unions kill business in many ways.
Got any guesses?

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:40 am

Cornbread wrote:
gargantua wrote:The assertion that most conservatives consider the progressive income tax as punishing success is nothing more than ideology.

I don't know if I'm asserting anything, but what I am SAYING is, if one makes more money and more money is then taken from them (as an overall percentage), then how can someone think that is anything other than punishing success?


How? Most people are smarter than you and understand the reality of the situation, that's how.

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby Cornbread » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:48 pm

wack wack wrote:
I don't know if I'm asserting anything, but what I am SAYING is, if one makes more money and more money is then taken from them (as an overall percentage), then how can someone think that is anything other than punishing success?


How? Most people are smarter than you and understand the reality of the situation, that's how.


To those that are stopping by to read this...this (and a lot of other posts) is a great example of the ignorance of the leftists. They ignore, change the subject, attack, or label a person something, then build upon it as if it were real.

This weakness of the left is, well, why they are the clueless, dying breed they are.

Support your Tea Party.
Last edited by Cornbread on Sat Jun 16, 2012 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

peripat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby peripat » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:09 pm

You really don't understand even basic economics, do you?

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3348
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby bdog » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:19 pm

Not taking a side here either way, but addressing PP's last comment.

Understanding basic economics is necessary, yes. But it is also necessary to understand human behavior, which can appear to go against economic interest.

Hang on, I'LL BE BACK.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12637
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Tax rates on wealthy lowest since before Depression

Postby snoqueen » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:29 pm

Here's someone not-at-all-a-leftist who shows exactly how bad it's gotten and who it's going to hurt: the next generation, who aren't reading along:

Younger Americans don’t realize they’re coming of age in an era in which both parties have pre-committed virtually all public resources to seniors. They’ll inherit a government without the cash or flexibility to address emerging non-elderly needs — choices that should be every generation’s birthright....

There are answers to these challenges that are fair to young and old alike. But we won’t hear them until younger people wake up to what’s happening.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests