First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Kansas kills Reaganomics
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

serifsansserif wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:


What you're writing is a great example of the poison of desiring equal outcome, and conflating the virtue of equal treatment by the government with the vice of equality of outcome in everything in life. Trying to make everything equal in life is, as Churchill would say, the politics of envy.

Blah blah blah blah.....


Actually, I'm trying to point out the difference between percentages and specific values.

I don't mind some inequality, but I believe the role of the government is to balance out the inequalities of the market to make it at least "fairer".

Of course you want "fairness" in your taxes

As for "skills", It's bullshit. most of the time it's who you know and luck.

Plus you think those that market supply and demands should guide labor as it does goods, so if the labor market were to get together like businesses do to artificially inflate their prices to maximize profits... Oh wait.. That's unions.

Or perhaps as businesses might pay less for labor than is sustainable then perhaps labor should force the markets to sell goods at less than sustainable prices..... Oh wait, you're against that too...

Why are some things ok and some things not?


I understand what you're saying about percentages and specific values. Actually, if it were really equal, then the government would give the same services to everyone and charge the same rate. But, like I said, "sheep ready to fleece".

Personally, I follow in the vein of American values, that the role of the government is to protect our God-given rights, as it says in the Declaration. I don't believe the government's role is to pursue some nebulous idea about fairness in all things in life. So, that, I suppose, is the difference between our beliefs.

If you're saying the reason a doctor is generally payed more than a mopper is not a matter of valuable skills but a matter of networking, I would strongly disagree with that. I would say that mopping pays less because you can pull anybody off the street and show him how to do it in seconds, if he doesn't already know. Meanwhile, becoming a doctor takes years of training and sacrifice, huge tuition bills, and so fewer people do it. Also, saving lives is a pretty valuable thing. That said, I agree that within fields it's also a matter of who you know ---networking is a valuable skill, and some people are better at it than others.

Collective bargaining, price setting, price gauging, these are all methods of negotiating in a market. Like life, it's complex, and not always fair. Nobody knows how to understand and manage the market --which is really just a way of saying people going about life. It's not the role of the government to set everything right in life, and history tells us that if there such a role, the government would be the last candidate for it. Throughout history, government oppression of the citizen has been the norm.


11272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17
And for the argument that one dollar is the same as the other and therefore taxes should be equal in DOLLARS...

Well.... You have ten dollars, I have twenty. Tax rate is $15 for everybody.......

Anyone see a problem with that?
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:



Yah. That's being against tax equality. Or at least, having no problem with it.


And why would I, as a someone who makes a hell of a lot more then some dude mopping hallways in some high school I should be contributing more to the financial welfare of my nation. To me the amount my government expects out of me is no hardship. To the janitor the amount the government expects out of him is likely a hardship since he is already makes less then me to begin with.


With tax equality you still are giving more because you're making more. If work ten hours a week and earn ten dollars, and the tax rate is 10%, then I am taxed $1. If I work 100 hours per week and make $100, then I am taxed $10. The rate is equal. Tax inequality discriminates and divides people into classes.


Tax equality only looks equal on paper. In practice it isn't anywhere close.

If you're making 1000$ a week, and you pay 10% tax, you just lost 100$. What can you not buy now that you've lost that 100$? A new video game, or maybe you have to save up an extra week to buy a brand new phone.

If you're making 100$ a week, ad you pay 10% tax, you just lost 10$. What can you not buy now that you've just lost that 10$? FOOD, or the bills you need to pay to keep the power on so you don't freeze to death in the winter.

That's why tax equality doesn't work. The poorer you are, the more every single dollar counts just for staying alive. By contrast, the richer you are, lost earnings wind up just being lost luxury. Simply put, a person who makes more can also afford to pay more while still living a comfortable life, while a person who makes less literally can not afford to pay an 'equal' share without losing basic necessities. That's the entire reason why nobody actually uses an equal tax system, it doesn't work, and anyone who thinks it does lacks a basic understanding of how economics actually works.
11272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

I understand what you're saying about percentages and specific values. Actually, if it were really equal, then the government would give the same services to everyone and charge the same rate. But, like I said, "sheep ready to fleece".

Personally, I follow in the vein of American values, that the role of the government is to protect our God-given rights, as it says in the Declaration. I don't believe the government's role is to pursue some nebulous idea about fairness in all things in life. So, that, I suppose, is the difference between our beliefs.

If you're saying the reason a doctor is generally payed more than a mopper is not a matter of valuable skills but a matter of networking, I would strongly disagree with that. I would say that mopping pays less because you can pull anybody off the street and show him how to do it in seconds, if he doesn't already know. Meanwhile, becoming a doctor takes years of training and sacrifice, huge tuition bills, and so fewer people do it. Also, saving lives is a pretty valuable thing. That said, I agree that within fields it's also a matter of who you know ---networking is a valuable skill, and some people are better at it than others.

Collective bargaining, price setting, price gauging, these are all methods of negotiating in a market. Like life, it's complex, and not always fair. Nobody knows how to understand and manage the market --which is really just a way of saying people going about life. It's not the role of the government to set everything right in life, and history tells us that if there such a role, the government would be the last candidate for it. Throughout history, government oppression of the citizen has been the norm.




Oddly enough, "doctor" is not nearly as lucrative as CEO or stockholder or "celebrity"...

Fuck. "President of the US" isn't even close to the above.....

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/ceo-pay-ratio/

Presidency is 400K....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

We have companies with wealth beyond that of modern european nations as well dude..

I mean we're so far gone from "fair" isn't not even funny.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

GizenZirin wrote:


Tax equality only looks equal on paper. In practice it isn't anywhere close.

If you're making 1000$ a week, and you pay 10% tax, you just lost 100$. What can you not buy now that you've lost that 100$? A new video game, or maybe you have to save up an extra week to buy a brand new phone.


Well no, what can you not buy? $100 worth of stuff. Any stuff. Food. Video games. Diapers. Anything. Likewise:
[qtuo]e
If you're making 100$ a week, ad you pay 10% tax, you just lost 10$. What can you not buy now that you've just lost that 10$? FOOD, or the bills you need to pay to keep the power on so you don't freeze to death in the winter.

What have you lost? Ten dollars. What can you not buy? $10 worth of stuff. Any stuff. Food. Video games. Diapers. Whatever.

A dollar is to value as centimeters is to length. Again, you're buying into the objectively false notion that a dollar is suddenly worth less if you put it in a pile with other dollars. That's like saying a centimeter is suddenly becomes shorter if you put it next to a bunch of other centimeters. It's nonsense. False. Objectively untrue.

The government is obligated to treat us equally regardless of race, religion, class, etc. What you're advocating is inequality and discrimination. You're appealing to a subjective notion of 'setback' or 'hurt'. Until you can come up with an objective measurement of "hurt" then you really have no leg to stand on. It's like saying that it's more wrong to punch a big guy in the face because he has more nerve cells and so it causes more 'hurt'.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

serifsansserif wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

I understand what you're saying about percentages and specific values. Actually, if it were really equal, then the government would give the same services to everyone and charge the same rate. But, like I said, "sheep ready to fleece".

Personally, I follow in the vein of American values, that the role of the government is to protect our God-given rights, as it says in the Declaration. I don't believe the government's role is to pursue some nebulous idea about fairness in all things in life. So, that, I suppose, is the difference between our beliefs.

If you're saying the reason a doctor is generally payed more than a mopper is not a matter of valuable skills but a matter of networking, I would strongly disagree with that. I would say that mopping pays less because you can pull anybody off the street and show him how to do it in seconds, if he doesn't already know. Meanwhile, becoming a doctor takes years of training and sacrifice, huge tuition bills, and so fewer people do it. Also, saving lives is a pretty valuable thing. That said, I agree that within fields it's also a matter of who you know ---networking is a valuable skill, and some people are better at it than others.

Collective bargaining, price setting, price gauging, these are all methods of negotiating in a market. Like life, it's complex, and not always fair. Nobody knows how to understand and manage the market --which is really just a way of saying people going about life. It's not the role of the government to set everything right in life, and history tells us that if there such a role, the government would be the last candidate for it. Throughout history, government oppression of the citizen has been the norm.




Oddly enough, "doctor" is not nearly as lucrative as CEO or stockholder or "celebrity"...

Fuck. "President of the US" isn't even close to the above.....

https://www.glassdoor.com/research/ceo-pay-ratio/

Presidency is 400K....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

We have companies with wealth beyond that of modern european nations as well dude..

I mean we're so far gone from "fair" isn't not even funny.


That's because "fair" is a highly subjective idea. JK Rowling wrote a great story, for which millions of people all voluntarily gave up a little of their wealth, because they wanted the story and entertainment more than that six bucks. Rowling became a billionaire because of it, and there was greater inequality in the world. So what? According to some people, what Rowling did was bad because she created income inequality. "That's not fair", they say. Well, what was wrong about it? Was it wrong for Rowling to write a story? Was it wrong for her to voluntarily sell books for a few dollars each? Was it wrong for people to voluntarily pay a couple dollars for a copy? No, of course not. In the minds of some people, the part that's wrong is Rowling having so much more wealth than they, and the government should take it's guns, step in, and take Rowling's wealth and give it to them. That's why Churchill called it "the politics of envy".

As for the president, there's a reason why it's called "governance by peers", rather than "governance by superiors". It's supposed to ordinary and mundane in some ways. It's not supposed to be a kingly office. We don't want kings.

11272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

That's because "fair" is a highly subjective idea. JK Rowling wrote a great story, for which millions of people all voluntarily gave up a little of their wealth, because they wanted the story and entertainment more than that six bucks. Rowling became a billionaire because of it, and there was greater inequality in the world. So what? According to some people, what Rowling did was bad because she created income inequality. "That's not fair", they say. Well, what was wrong about it? Was it wrong for Rowling to write a story? Was it wrong for her to voluntarily sell books for a few dollars each? Was it wrong for people to voluntarily pay a couple dollars for a copy? No, of course not. In the minds of some people, the part that's wrong is Rowling having so much more wealth than they, and the government should take it's guns, step in, and take Rowling's wealth and give it to them. That's why Churchill called it "the politics of envy".

As for the president, there's a reason why it's called "governance by peers", rather than "governance by superiors". It's supposed to ordinary and mundane in some ways. It's not supposed to be a kingly office. We don't want kings.



Rowling was lucky and copyrights protecting intellectual property (she made money for the intellectual property, not making books. not making the movies, which are intellectual property using intellectual property, and merchandise, which she gained money from that intellectual property as well.....and the fact that books are a great example of a good that benefits from economics of scale)....

The presidency... There's only one and it's considered the most powerful position IN THE WORLD. Only one person can hold it. Rarity plus importance, regardless of being "common" (which is the biggest piece of bullshit you're peddling) makes it a job that strictly based on those two factors should make it at least COMPARABLE to someone who fails at running a business and still comes up with 100 times that amount as a "going away package"...

Also, "governance of peers"... I don't know who the fuck YOU hang out with, but I sure as fuck am not hobnobbing with multibillionaires who are famous for losing fucktons of money I can't possibly make in my lifetime in real estate...
84850 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17


No offense, but you seem to understand nothing about taxes. The marginal rate is meaningless by itself. The effective federal tax rate today is comparable to the effective federal tax rate in 1979. The highest income bracket in 1979 was only at 21.8% effective federal tax rate. Despite a top federal marginal rate in 2002 of 38.6%, the top effective federal rate in 2002 was actually higher, at 23.7%. The CBO hasn't published numbers that I can find for the effective tax rate of 2006 - present, but you can see the effective tax rates through the years from 1979 - 2005 here: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf

It is all about the synergy between the marginal rate and the deductions and tax credits.

Edit:
Some more fun facts: In 1979, the social security tax and medicare taxes were 5.08% and 1.05% on the first $22,900. In 2016, the social security tax was 6.2% on the first $118,500 and the medicare tax was 1.45% with no max. So, we are actually paying more to the federal government in taxes now then in 1979 when the highest marginal rate was 70%. That is not even to mention the state and local taxes, which are almost assuredly higher now then they were then.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

serifsansserif wrote:



Rowling was lucky and copyrights protecting intellectual property (she made money for the intellectual property, not making books. not making the movies, which are intellectual property using intellectual property, and merchandise, which she gained money from that intellectual property as well.....and the fact that books are a great example of a good that benefits from economics of scale)....

The presidency... There's only one and it's considered the most powerful position IN THE WORLD. Only one person can hold it. Rarity plus importance, regardless of being "common" (which is the biggest piece of bullshit you're peddling) makes it a job that strictly based on those two factors should make it at least COMPARABLE to someone who fails at running a business and still comes up with 100 times that amount as a "going away package"...

Also, "governance of peers"... I don't know who the fuck YOU hang out with, but I sure as fuck am not hobnobbing with multibillionaires who are famous for losing fucktons of money I can't possibly make in my lifetime in real estate...


OK well, I guess it was luck --ie mere probability, that caused millions of people to go out and buy her books. Not, you know, voluntarily trading one asset for another, after being convinced of it's value, enjoying a great product, and talking it up. It was luck. You know, like being struck by lightning. Human will, desire, and skill had nothing to do with it. Your dismissal of it SCREAMS "envy".

You should read the Federalist Papers, and other writings of the Founding Fathers.
11272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

OK well, I guess it was luck --ie mere probability, that caused millions of people to go out and buy her books. Not, you know, voluntarily trading one asset for another, after being convinced of it's value, enjoying a great product, and talking it up. It was luck. You know, like being struck by lightning. Human will, desire, and skill had nothing to do with it. Your dismissal of it SCREAMS "envy".

You should read the Federalist Papers, and other writings of the Founding Fathers.


Dude, she's one of MILLIONS of writers in her country.

The example of a doctor is less about luck. You should have stuck with that. (except their education costs them so much that it takes decades to learn their trade and decades to pay off the loans)

The federalist papers and other "founding father" documents are irrelevant in today's society and have absolutely nothing on the implications of "intellectual property" as we know it. the very concept was nascent to the time in which they existed. They couldn't even CONCIEVE of making profit on a mere "idea" like say.. the mp3 format (which is actually a thing that is licensed and requires payment to the holder of the rights to that idea, mind you, in today's age you can barter "ideas" so that a corporation, which is not a person but is treated like a person and can "own things" independent of the people who own the business... I mean it's hard for TODAY'S people to grasp this shit....)

Back then they were farmers, most of which owned other people and saw no problem with that, and, even then, were primarily rich people who wanted to keep the "riff raff" poor people from having a say in government, (the original requirement of being a white male LAND OWNER), which really... "a governance of peers".....

I mean I don't fault people for having more than me.. I really don't. It's the EXCESS that bothers me. Again, we're talking wealth beyond nations. People who don't even make the top 500 list without owning at least 5 BILLION dollars.

I don't fault the doctor for making more than I do. I don't fault a successful small business owner making half a mil a year even, (as long as he isn't incredibly miserly and treats his workers like shit).

I fault the greed. I fault the desire for more for one's self so much that they forget that others have less.

I do respectable. Not excellent, but I sit pretty close to the median salary for the average american, and TBH, I sit slightly on the better side. But I also grew up shit poor, eating government cheese, and even worse, the government peanut butter that comes in a #10 can with a white generic label, (that shit is gross)...

I KNOW how those who have less than me live. I am not envious of them. I pay my taxes willingly and I don't care if my money goes to welfare. Welfare is a shit lifestyle. Unless you lived it, you have no idea... And NOBODY wants to live that way.. So why the fuck are you so jealous of them having what little they have? why you want to take away their paper thin drafty ass government housing and their endless cans of creamed spinach and nearly expired food that people donate to the food pantries like the poor aren't even human?

Why do you think taxing them MORE is a good idea, or rather what makes you think you're so poor you deserve to be taxed as little as they are?

You ever get your christmas presents from charity? You ever have to live in a trailer at some point in your life? you ever gone homeless for a week or two?

It's a shit life dude... I've been there.

and THAT'S who you're bitching about not pulling their weight.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17

GizenZirin wrote:

People who are so poor that they're starving to death because they can't afford food are not safe, not happy, and tend not to live for very long either. It is the government's job to protect those people. It is their primary job, and that supercedes you whining about their 'discrimination'. Also, side note, you'd be amazed how many types of 'discrimination' aren't actually covered by either the constitution or the bill of rights, specifically so that they have the freedom to make necessary decisions like have a proper tax code.


Dude, you need to stop. You don't understand what I'm saying, and you're taking things out of context. I already talked about how a fiat currency messes with things a bit, so you're making yourself look stupid by beating and taunting a straw man while I watch you saying "Hey. Um. Dude. I'm over here. That's not me".

Reading comprehension may be the problem. For example, you say the part you quote says:

"the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety"

and then say That is a direct quote from the very first passage of the Bill of Rights.

No. It's not.

You're quoting a speech by Madison

Quote mining is pathetic enough.

Shitty quote mining is unacceptable. Any American worth his salt knows that the Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, starting with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

There are other people here interested in having a meaningful discussion, despite disagreeing with me.

You're just trying to piss in people's breakfast cereal and laugh at them

And you're missing the bowl
11 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

karatecowboy wrote:

What have you lost? Ten dollars. What can you not buy? $10 worth of stuff. Any stuff. Food. Video games. Diapers. Whatever.

A dollar is to value as centimeters is to length. Again, you're buying into the objectively false notion that a dollar is suddenly worth less if you put it in a pile with other dollars. That's like saying a centimeter is suddenly becomes shorter if you put it next to a bunch of other centimeters. It's nonsense. False. Objectively untrue.


You should stop, seriously. It's actually getting hard to type because I'm laughing so hard.


A dollar is to value as centimeters is to length.


A centimeter is a scientific measurement measuring a specific distance. The length a centimeter measures never changes and always measures the exact same distance. By contrast, a dollar is a sociological construct created to more easily enable trade. Not only does the value of a dollar change, but it changes on a daily basis based on external factors, and overtime will gradually decrease because...


Again, you're buying into the objectively false notion that a dollar is suddenly worth less if you put it in a pile with other dollars.


Yes, that's literally how inflation works.


The government is obligated to treat us equally regardless of race, religion, class, etc. What you're advocating is inequality and discrimination. You're appealing to a subjective notion of 'setback' or 'hurt'. Until you can come up with an objective measurement of "hurt" then you really have no leg to stand on. It's like saying that it's more wrong to punch a big guy in the face because he has more nerve cells and so it causes more 'hurt'.


Since you lack even a fundamental understanding of economics on even a most basic level, it comes as no surprise that you also lack any understanding of how the government functions.


The US Bill of Rights
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.


That is a direct quote from the very first passage of the Bill of Rights. Note the bolded passages. Before equality, before anything else, the government's first and main job is to keep people alive, safe, and happy. That is its primary reason for existence. It is the reason why it makes laws and regulations, it's the reason why it maintains a police force and a military.

People who are so poor that they're starving to death because they can't afford food are not safe, not happy, and tend not to live for very long either. It is the government's job to protect those people. It is their primary job, and that supercedes you whining about their 'discrimination'. Also, side note, you'd be amazed how many types of 'discrimination' aren't actually covered by either the constitution or the bill of rights, specifically so that they have the freedom to make necessary decisions like have a proper tax code.
17429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
Sigh, does the OP live in Kansas or know anyone who does? I'd bet not. Typical Megalopolis view of "flyover" america.
43869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Online
Posted 6/7/17

So no do you don't magically get more money because you cut taxes you get the opposite less money.


Higher taxes = more tax money?

Raise taxes to 50%.
need more money?
raise taxes to 60%.
need more money?
Raise taxes to 70%
need more money?
raise taxes to 80%
need more money?
Raise taxes to 90%.
need more money?
Raise taxes to 100%.

If raising taxes means more taxes, is there a point where you would say it is too much? If there is, then I disproved Democrat's argument that lowering taxes does not create more tax revenue. If you say there isn't a point where taxes collected would go down.... then you might want to take a macro-economic class. No one is going to run a business where all profit is taken from them.

Taxing LLC at next to nothing was Democrat level of stupid. Taxing is like a bell curve where the top of the curve is where you want to find. Forget all the "tax the rich more", you are not looking for more tax revenue when you say that, you just want money taken away from those who have it.

taxing 70%, yea, maybe you should look at California, not sure how much they tax, but they tax very high and have to be subsidized by the other 49 states to stay running.
17429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/7/17
Lmao and moast of those silicon vally companies offshore 90% of their earnings to avoid us taxes. Last time i checked the only thing in my house that came from califiornia was services from silicon valley. My food is all local, or from the midwest, or south of the border. So let california live up to the full paris agreement and pay that $200 billion per year from the us that was the only legally binding part of the accord.
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17 , edited 6/8/17

Mariox777 wrote:


So no do you don't magically get more money because you cut taxes you get the opposite less money.


Higher taxes = more tax money?

Raise taxes to 50%.
need more money?
raise taxes to 60%.
need more money?
Raise taxes to 70%
need more money?
raise taxes to 80%
need more money?
Raise taxes to 90%.
need more money?
Raise taxes to 100%.

If raising taxes means more taxes, is there a point where you would say it is too much? If there is, then I disproved Democrat's argument that lowering taxes does not create more tax revenue. If you say there isn't a point where taxes collected would go down.... then you might want to take a macro-economic class. No one is going to run a business where all profit is taken from them.

Taxing LLC at next to nothing was Democrat level of stupid. Taxing is like a bell curve where the top of the curve is where you want to find. Forget all the "tax the rich more", you are not looking for more tax revenue when you say that, you just want money taken away from those who have it.

taxing 70%, yea, maybe you should look at California, not sure how much they tax, but they tax very high and have to be subsidized by the other 49 states to stay running.

... You shouldn't make blatantly false statements when you clearly know very little on the topic.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
So out of the 50 states, California is ranked #46 for dependence on federal money. Also, California pays more in federal taxes than they receive back, to the tune of $0.78 on the dollar.
21774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/7/17

ishe5555 wrote:



No offense, but you seem to understand nothing about taxes. The marginal rate is meaningless by itself. The effective federal tax rate today is comparable to the effective federal tax rate in 1979. The highest income bracket in 1979 was only at 21.8% effective federal tax rate. Despite a top federal marginal rate in 2002 of 38.6%, the top effective federal rate in 2002 was actually higher, at 23.7%. The CBO hasn't published numbers that I can find for the effective tax rate of 2006 - present, but you can see the effective tax rates through the years from 1979 - 2005 here: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf

It is all about the synergy between the marginal rate and the deductions and tax credits.

Edit:
Some more fun facts: In 1979, the social security tax and medicare taxes were 5.08% and 1.05% on the first $22,900. In 2016, the social security tax was 6.2% on the first $118,500 and the medicare tax was 1.45% with no max. So, we are actually paying more to the federal government in taxes now then in 1979 when the highest marginal rate was 70%. That is not even to mention the state and local taxes, which are almost assuredly higher now then they were then.


Nice attempt you are the second person that made a similar statement they failed the same way you just did by trying to distract with facts that are correct but incorrect for what is being talked about in this case. What is being talked about is income purely income this means the income tax not Social security or Medicare and I'm not sure where the hell you are getting your numbers for the highest tax bracket because you are off by several percentage points. Unless you are mixing up capital gains with the actual income tax rate which would be closer to your 21% number. The actually rate on average for the top margin was 68% but the actual rate was 70% I suggest you actually study some history on the subject. http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/64/1979
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.