WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Kansas kills Reaganomics
runec 
34757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

Shinosushi wrote:
Redistribution of wealth...Really - yes lets punish those who worked their way out of the gutter....Because it makes me feel better. Lets punish those who work hard!


Per the UFE:

21% of the people on the Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to get them onto the list outright.
7% inherited 50 million or more in cash or assets.
11.5% inherited 1 million or more in cash or assets.
22% were born upper class and received inheritance or start up capital from family less than 1 million.

Only 35% were born into lower or middle class backgrounds and had to "work their way out of the gutter".

There's a reason Republicans are forever trying to cut or eliminate the inheritance tax and lower capital gains tax.

It takes money to make money and it makes even more money to retain money outside of the goods/services economy. Hence why "trickle down" doesn't work.












9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/17 , edited 6/8/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
It's not really a "punishment". I think people look at it as some type of a punishment because of the insecurity that they feel when they're spending outside of their means because they feel more confident in doing so (as they get more money in the long term). Having a nest egg, responsible spending, and investments that strive for long-term returns are the best options for anyone. If you're making enough to be in an upper-end tax bracket, then you should be able to do these things without sacrificing a comfortable lifestyle compared to those in lower tax brackets.


I think that's it in a nutshell.

Most people are firstly more concerned with "me and my own" to care much about the MUCH bigger picture and how all the parts are interconnected.

Secondarily, most of these people think that being poor somehow is a wonderous life, rather than the shithole it really is. Even if they come from very poor backgrounds.
5061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Ks USA
Offline
Posted 6/8/17

bernardwheelerjr wrote:

Sigh, does the OP live in Kansas or know anyone who does? I'd bet not. Typical Megalopolis view of "flyover" america.


I do.
21762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/12/17

ishe5555 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Effective tax rates the actual tax rate paid by a person back in the late 50's the effective tax rate was about 70% for those in the top margin the actual tax rate was 90% for the top margin. The marginal rate is the rate that is paid depending on which margin you fall into is paid there are multiple margins within a progressive or graduated tax system. Clear enough for you so yeah I do actually understand what I'm talking about. So in 1979 the effective tax rate on the margin for those paying 200k or more was 70% which was the actual tax rate as well. Now a person could pay less then the margin which is why I posted what I did it showed the average rate was at about 68% within 2% of the margin not the much lower rate given by the other poster.


I don't know where you get the 68% statistic from, because the link you posted doesn't have that number anywhere. The closest it has to that is the average top marginal rate of 63%, which is the what you get if you take all the historical top marginal rates in US history and average them out. In 1979, the effective tax rate for those paying 200K was not 70%, nor was it 68%.

In 1955 the top marginal rate was 90%, but noone was paying it. The amount, after deductions, that you would have to be making to even breach into the 90% bracket was $200,000 (if single, 400,000 filing jointly), which would translate to about $1.6 million dollars after inflation. So, that means that only money made over the equivalent of $1.6 million was taxed at 90%. I don't know where you get that the effective tax rate in the 50s was 70%, but I'm certain it isn't true. Everything I have seen where the effective rate of the top 1% has been estimated, it is around 50%. That is higher than the effective rate today or in the 70s, but still no where near what you are touting. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

Lets do this though, since you are so stuck on marginal rates. Lets have the following tax brackets for single payer income:
10% $0 - $9,999
15% $10,000 - $50,000
45% $50,001 - $80,000
100% 80,000+
But, everyone will have a standard deduction of $2 million dollars. Of course no one would actually be paying any taxes, but you would have your ridiculous margin rates.


The amount people were paying in 1955 before 1964 when LBJ and congress closed the loopholes and lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70% was around 70% if you went above the maximum amount in the top bracket that is with deductions there is a reason they picked 70% that is what every rich person was paying they kept some of the deductions but got ride of the more egregious ones. Yes if you made over 200k back in 1955 you paid more in taxes even with deductions. This argument you keep making that they some how paid less doesn't bear out in history they paid more. No really history doesn't show this and it never has.

No the top marginal rate in 1979 really was 70% it didn't change until Reagan cut taxes in 1982 that is why I post to that link it shows the historic marginal rates for under each presidency. it also showed the average rate the top margin was taxed at that is where I got the 68% Here is another site that shows the historic rates for each year. http://www.milefoot.com/math/businessmath/taxes/fit.htm or you can refer back to the earlier link and compare against more presidents directly and see the average percentage paid by those at the top margin it is higher then you think. As for a two million dollar deduction nope that wouldn't happen and shouldn't happen and even if it did once they go over two million dollars they would be hit with the higher rate.

Three things happened in the 1980's first Reagan cut taxes on the which in turn blew a hole in the budget and lastly they changed how CEO's were allowed to be compensated. This has lead directly to the high price tag on folks that used to earn 20 times what the lowest person in a company made not 200 times or 300 times. A fourth thing happened as well Reagan raised taxes and spent like a drunken sailor the last of which spurred some growth but no where near what it could of been if it had beenfor actually public works project instead of military spending.

Now if you want to see the deductions you could have taken in 1979 here is the I1040 you may have never seen one of these I remember them well and yes you had to manually figure out your effective rate back then last time I actually filed taxes by hand was in 1986 since then I have either had some else do it or done it with software so I'm a little rusty on it. The deductions are in Schedule A starts on page 16 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1979.pdf
466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 6/13/17

runec wrote:
It takes money to make money and it makes even more money to retain money outside of the goods/services economy. Hence why "trickle down" doesn't work.


And who creates jobs if not rich people? You?

82670 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M
Offline
Posted 6/15/17


You have posted no sources for your 70% effective rate claim for 1955. I have looked innumerable places and found nothing indicating an effective rate that high for any bracket or percentile in 1955. It seems to be only in your fevered imagination that this was the effective rate that the top percentile paid. Every place I have looked that talked about the effective rate for 1955 of the top percentile or of those making 200K or above has indicated around a 50% effective rate. I posted one of those sources to that effect. That is actually rather high, possibly the highest effective federal tax rate in our nations history. As I stated and sourced before, the effective federal tax rate for the highest earners in the 1979 - present has been around 20% - 25%, and 50% is double that. So, I have made no argument against the statement that people paid more federal taxes at the highest incomes in 1955 than they do at present. Your percents are way off, though from every reasonable source. The main reason why the effective rate in 1955 was so low compared to the margins is that the tax deductions (loop holes) were completely out of hand. An example is that real estate property was considered a depreciating asset, despite that property usually increases in value. In fact, property was considered to be fully depreciated in 27.5 years. So, a person could buy real estate property and take tax deductions of 3.6% the purchase value of the property every year for 27 years.

I never claimed that the top marginal rate in 1979 was not 70%, but the top marginal rate DOES NOT MATTER. If no one is paying the top marginal rate it may as well not exist. There were still massive deductions allowed in the 1970s. The link you showed me says absolutely nothing about 68%, nothing. There is no mention of that number associated with 1979. You are dead wrong about there being an effective rate in 1979 of 68%. In fact, that was not even possible, because the maximum possible effective federal income tax rate in 1979 was 50% (which your source link http://www.milefoot.com/math/businessmath/taxes/fit.htm shows), and that is still not the average effective federal tax rate people making over 200K were actually paying. The average effective federal tax rate that people making over 200K were paying was around 21% - 23%. The link that you posted, http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/l/64/1979, shows that very same thing as well. You have to go to the "Average Tax Rates for all Households" section and select "Individual Income", where it shows that the top 1% of income earners were paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 22.7%. In fact, the source it is using for the effective tax rate is the Tax Policy Center, who is sourcing from the very same Congressional Budget Office link that I posted for you.

Yes, Reagan cut taxes in 1982. It needed to be done. He didn't raise the federal income taxes back up. Rather, he cut the deductions (loopholes) that needed to be cut, causing the effective rate being paid to be around the same as in 1979. There were some other taxes he raised or added, but they weren't federal income taxes. By 1987, the average effective federal income tax rate of the top 1% was back up to 21.7%, fairly close to the pre-1980 level. I have found nothing indicating anything that Reagan did anything to change how CEOs can be paid that would have increased their pay ratio. You will need to post a source for that. The only thing that I can see was done was that in 1984 (during Reagan's term), a law was passed eliminating tax deductibility of golden parachutes (employment termination packages) that exceeded 3 times base salary. It didn't add deductibility, but took away from it.
eldos1 
82225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36
Online
Posted 6/15/17
As a mental exercise, Can you have "equal protection under the law" when people are not required to pay equally under the law? So first, we need to justify why the burden is greater for one than the other for no other reason than ability to pay.
21762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17


I never stated the effective rate was 70% I stated the top marginal rate was 90% in 1955 which is what the top marginal rate was in 1955 up until 1964 when LBJ closed loopholes and and reduced it to 70%. As for your statement that the top marginal rate doesn't matter that is absolute crap yes it matter. The reason it matters is people end up paying it. This belief you have that no one was paying at that rate is false it was false the first time you stated it and it continues to be false. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are ignoring history. No really go ask the IRS or an actually person that paid taxes back in 1979 you will find that they paid plenty if the made over 215400 dollar. Because enough people were getting paid over that amount to get into the top bracket.

The Reason Reagan cut taxes was to give a big wet sloppy kiss to the rich the tax cut was not need and did not get us out of the rescission we were in at the time. Which was caused by the reduced spending from us exiting the Vietnam war. He spent like a drunken sailor and punched a hole in the budget which he filled by raising taxes on the poor and middle class 11 times. So his tax cuts are what directly lead to the current debt we hold not the democrats spending it was the Republican spending without paying for it thorough taxes.

The whole concept of trickle down economics is false it has never worked where it was attempted Kansas is the proof of this. It fails on ever level and will never work. Cutting taxes does not spur growth unless you aim those cuts at the bottom. This idea that the rich can get a free lunch which is what it is them getting their free lunch and somehow the economy will start booming is busted.



<EdIt>
I’m going to show you how this works since you appear to not understand this. If you made 400k in 1979 you did not pay 28.7%(the effective rate in 1979) on all of your earnings you paid that rate on the first 215,400 dollars so the math which is simple goes like this 400,000-215400= 184,600 this amount is taxed at the marginal rate minus deductions which would be 70% minus up to about 20% if you took every deduction you could legally take. So, if you made over the top end on the bracket you paid at the marginal rate not the effective rate. Your argument that no one paid at this rate is false you make 1$ over the amount top end bracket and you are paying the top marginal rate minus deductions. This how it has always worked and this is how it works now this is why it is called a progressive tax system.
<End Edit>
21762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/15/17

Getsugah wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:

Sigh, does the OP live in Kansas or know anyone who does? I'd bet not. Typical Megalopolis view of "flyover" america.


I do.


I was born in Kansas have family there still and have lived there for a short time. The impact of the tax cuts on there school as well as the rest of the services has been pretty devastating. There were having to cut back on hours for school which much like Washington state is required by the Constitutions for the state as for other services they had started cutting things the couldn't afford to cut and it was become very clear they had to get money into the system before things started getting worse. My Aunt was a teacher of special needs kids until recently in Kansas.

I love Kansas I don't live there because it's winters and summers suck I have experienced both I want it to be a successful place but to get their they need to start changing their industry framing is great and all but they also have some manufacturing and oil one of which can easily be changed up to create new jobs the other of which should only be used to supplement the society as needed. Kansas could have lead the green energy boom but instead they refuse to grow.
5061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Ks USA
Offline
Posted 6/15/17

I was born in Kansas have family there still and have lived there for a short time. The impact of the tax cuts on there school as well as the rest of the services has been pretty devastating. There were having to cut back on hours for school which much like Washington state is required by the Constitutions for the state as for other services they had started cutting things the couldn't afford to cut and it was become very clear they had to get money into the system before things started getting worse. My Aunt was a teacher of special needs kids until recently in Kansas.

I love Kansas I don't live there because it's winters and summers suck I have experienced both I want it to be a successful place but to get their they need to start changing their industry framing is great and all but they also have some manufacturing and oil one of which can easily be changed up to create new jobs the other of which should only be used to supplement the society as needed. Kansas could have lead the green energy boom but instead they refuse to grow.


Problem here is the pig headed gov. He wanted prove that trickle down works, well it we found out it does not, its a nice idea on paper, you tell a company "hey, you don't have to pay any more taxes, so you can use that extra money to hire people and expand" trouble is most companies just take the money, I know a lot of biz owners here who tell me, ya I hired 1 or 2 extra people, but that is all they needed or they did not need anyone in the first place or need to expand, they want to pay their fair share, farmers just took the money and ran, and lets not forget the good ol KOCH brothers, they do not need to do anything, other than not pay any taxes now, they pretty much bought Kansas.

So, all the LLC and what not are no longer paying taxes, where you make up that money? you cant, so you cut education to the bone, you rob or delay paying gov pension, you rob money from KDOT (our highway fund), you cut money and funding from just about every dept there is, and you come up with clever things like sin tax,online shopping tax, increase sales tax to try and re-coop the billions you are losing, everyone here in Kansas sees what is happening and are just now starting to wake up to the fact that the far right nuts are going to bankrupt the state since they are in a party first frame of mind now, and a lot of them were voted out of office this last election, you can only screw people over so much before they say enough is enough, your done.
21762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 6/15/17

Getsugah wrote:


I was born in Kansas have family there still and have lived there for a short time. The impact of the tax cuts on there school as well as the rest of the services has been pretty devastating. There were having to cut back on hours for school which much like Washington state is required by the Constitutions for the state as for other services they had started cutting things the couldn't afford to cut and it was become very clear they had to get money into the system before things started getting worse. My Aunt was a teacher of special needs kids until recently in Kansas.

I love Kansas I don't live there because it's winters and summers suck I have experienced both I want it to be a successful place but to get their they need to start changing their industry framing is great and all but they also have some manufacturing and oil one of which can easily be changed up to create new jobs the other of which should only be used to supplement the society as needed. Kansas could have lead the green energy boom but instead they refuse to grow.


Problem here is the pig headed gov. He wanted prove that trickle down works, well it we found out it does not, its a nice idea on paper, you tell a company "hey, you don't have to pay any more taxes, so you can use that extra money to hire people and expand" trouble is most companies just take the money, I know a lot of biz owners here who tell me, ya I hired 1 or 2 extra people, but that is all they needed or they did not need anyone in the first place or need to expand, they want to pay their fair share, farmers just took the money and ran, and lets not forget the good ol KOCH brothers, they do not need to do anything, other than not pay any taxes now, they pretty much bought Kansas.

So, all the LLC and what not are no longer paying taxes, where you make up that money? you cant, so you cut education to the bone, you rob or delay paying gov pension, you rob money from KDOT (our highway fund), you cut money and funding from just about every dept there is, and you come up with clever things like sin tax,online shopping tax, increase sales tax to try and re-coop the billions you are losing, everyone here in Kansas sees what is happening and are just now starting to wake up to the fact that the far right nuts are going to bankrupt the state since they are in a party first frame of mind now, and a lot of them were voted out of office this last election, you can only screw people over so much before they say enough is enough, your done.


Companies never invest it back into the company that is money in their pockets how hard is this for people to understand the only time you hire is when there is demand for your service or goods. Nothing magical about it no demand no hiring demand is people spending money people not spending money reduces demand.
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17

gvblackmoon wrote:
Congrats to my family back in Kansas I knew you could raise taxes. Now lets ditch the rest of Reaganomics in our economy and get back to sanity at the national level. A nice 70% income tax on those making more then 400k a year.


Do you not understand what a percentage is? What is more? 1% of 400k or 1% of 75k? What exactly is the definition of, "Fair share," to you? Increasing taxes on people who build and create things will only discourage business and drive people out of state. Then if a business has the means they will ditch the US entirely.
7 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17
I hate kansas. Avoid even driving through this ass backward state.
25600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/15/17

runec wrote:


Shinosushi wrote:
Redistribution of wealth...Really - yes lets punish those who worked their way out of the gutter....Because it makes me feel better. Lets punish those who work hard!


Per the UFE:

21% of the people on the Forbes 400 list simply inherited enough money to get them onto the list outright.
7% inherited 50 million or more in cash or assets.
11.5% inherited 1 million or more in cash or assets.
22% were born upper class and received inheritance or start up capital from family less than 1 million.

Only 35% were born into lower or middle class backgrounds and had to "work their way out of the gutter".


There's nothing wrong with that. Our children deserve whatever inheritance we can give them so they can have advantages and be successful. It makes sense that many wealthy individuals are the product of generations of success.
51530 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17
Here's a question:
What can you not buy with $1 Million, that you can buy with $100 Million?

Answer:
According to the bible, a reserved seat in hell.

Seven deadly sins sound familiar? Greed = one way ticket to hell. Funny though, the same people who espouse what good Christians they are, also seem to be some of the greediest people in the country. Debate the tax code all you want, what it really boils down to is this: I want everything I can possibly get my grubby hands on, and anyone else can go F* themselves.

Mind you, I'm not a very religious person, but I do find it amusing that the party of the "Religious Right" are in direct violation of their own holy book on a daily basis.

Oh and inheritance = monarchies. Power acquired simply by being born to specific parents.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.