Reply With Quote
"But those gains have already been taxed!"
"But those gains have already been taxed!"
"You didn't build that"
In 1965, when the US had pulled itself out of the massive debt it had accrued in WW2, the highest tax bracket was taxed 70%. The men who had fought and won WW2 were this country's leaders and the first of their children were coming into their majority.
50 years later, as the last of those children are retiring and no longer having income to tax, the highest tax bracket is taxed half of what it was then, 35%.
A capital gains tax makes sense but I think a wealth tax is in order.
The marginal rate for the rich didn't matter. We had more tax payers per capita.
In 1965, the standard deduction was the greater of 10% of one's W2 income, or $200 + $100 per exemption. Then exemptions were $600 each. There was very little to figure from here without itemized deductions. There was no earned income credit, child credits, etc. In the end, most wage earners paid taxes.
The 25% point on the tax table is at $6000. 28% at $8k, 36% at $12k, 39% at $14k. It hits 70% $100k. Now in 2012 dollars, these would be 7.29 times greater.
A family of four making $75k in 2012 would pay $4,319 in federal income tax. Less if they have interest deductions, itemize, etc. Now that same $75k is $10,288 in 1965. $10,288 would be taxed at $1,163, or $8,480 in 2012 dollars. Almost double.
A family of four making $45k in 2012 would pay nothing. This family in 1965, making $6,173, would pay $477 in federal taxes. The equivalent of $3,474 in 2012.
This doesn't have anything to do with the rich. There aren't enough of them to make but a minor difference. We simply aren't taxing enough people today. Politicians are buying your vote by promising lower taxes to people who already don't pay their fair share.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-27-2013 at 06:27 AM. Reason: fixing CPI index mistake
I miss the simple days of filling out tax forms.
My first filing year:
"There aren't enough of them to make but a minor difference"
bull . here's graph for you to deny:
in 2009, according to the CBO [see Figure I]
:
- The middle 20 percent of income earners paid just 9 percent of federal taxes, less than two-thirds their share of income.
- By contrast, the top 1 percent alone paid over 22 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 13 percent of the income.
- And the top 20 percent of earners paid nearly 70 percent of all federal taxes, while earning 50 percent of the income.
There was also a wide disparity in the tax rates paid by low-, middle- and high-income taxpayers in 2009 [see Figure II]:
- The bottom 20 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 1 percent.
- The middle 20 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 11.1 percent.
- However, the top 1 percent paid an average federal tax rate of 29 percent.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba770#sthash.rtunSayD.dpuf
So WC's favorite tax policy propaganda of taking more skin off the bottom 80%, "broadening the base", would only put the suffering 80% into deeper pain without raising significant revenue compared to what the top 20% pays, because the top 20% sucks in such a huge %age of total income, much of if from scamming, fee-ing, over-charging the 80%.
Even after lowering to 15% capital gains, even after $Ts not paid in estate taxes, even after all of Bishop Gecko's felony tax evasions, the top 20% still pays 70% of national tax bill.
btw, St Ronnie, patron saint of the VRWC, as well has shifing US from "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", he really got the deficit ball rolling by cutting taxes on the top (most of the tax income) while raising tax on the 80%. And Repug/VRWC policies of enriching/protecting the top will ing the bottom, and their wars are wealth redistribution to the top, are the primary reason for the national deficit.
Boutons.
How many of the top 1% do you think will be affected by income tax changes? Isn't most of their income taxed differently?
Now the middle class. Back to the 60's and 70's way of doing taxes, they would pay almost double what they currently do.
FYI.
I'm in the top 10%.
I would pay 16% more in taxes going by the 1965 form rather than my 2012 form, adjusted for 2012 dollars. Like anyone, i don't like the idea, but if everyone pays their fair share... I'm OK with it.
I think the thing that is hurting our revenue problem the most, is the $1,000 child tax credit. We went decades, just fine without it. With it, we have so many more people with no end of year tax liability, and almost everyone else with $1,000 less per child.
How many dependent children are in the USA? There is probably 30% of the population that classes as dependent children. (25.7% under 18 yrs old and 9.6% 18-24 yrs) This is $93 billion if revenue not seen.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-27-2013 at 06:46 AM.
Earning power is much less than it used to be though. Many more families have dual incomes today than in the 60's/70's.
So...
Does that mean people shouldn't pay a fair share in taxes?
You act as if there's an objective consensus on what's "fair". Additionally, you imply that making taxes "fair" should be the ultimate goal of tax policy. Other goals could be better mobility, higher GDP, etc etc.
A 15% cap gains tax is about as far away from fair as it gets.
I have a problem with over the years, less and less people helping to support the government expenses. It gets worse in that these people now expect to be en led.
that, we don't have enough revenue to redistribute.
income tax for me is taxes on ALL income.
Capital gains tax should be abolished.
dubya's estate tax should be rolled back. It costs $Ts, so far.
Kill the "carried interest" ripoff.
tax ALL financial transactions.
Policy Basics: The Child Tax Credit
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2989
I agree that Obama's friends can afford to pay more.
Another way to look at it would be the amount of earnings one makes relative to the rest of the nation. There have been numerous studies showing that the rich own more and more of the country's wealth in terms of percentages. Couldn't one argue that, since they have been earning more and more relative to middle and low income workers (whose wages have been stagnant), that their tax burden should increase slightly to make up for it?
Government expenses are supported only by income tax?
I would bet that much more wealth is redistributed through the stock market via our 401K's than through en lements.
Also WC, if you taxed the middle and lower classes more heavily, wouldn't that greatly depress our economy? The lower income levels would have less money to spend on the economy, and that tax money would go right to the government. But you don't want to increase the size of government, do you? Also, do you think the government would spend that money as efficiently as the families who paid those taxes would?
WC has never been terribly interested in making sense.
slowly,with a recovering economy and growing tax base the deficit will decline IT ALWAYS DOES.
Talking about the deficit SO MUCH is a way the rich people can trick the middle class into saving them(the rich people) from paying more taxes......Note to middle class.....DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Wall St/Goldman s bag Pete Peterson has spent $500M of his own to fund the VRWC anti-deficit strategy, going back 35 years. They ain't doing it for the good of the country or the 99%.
Seeing people argue about marginal rates on regular income is frustrating and shows how little most Americans know about our tax code.
There's a mathematical reality neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in Washington want to accept that the only way a country can have a strong middle class that doesn't weaken over time is with an extremely progressive tax system that actually does "redistribute" wealth. The tax ideas in this country right now involving increased regular income tax/increased sales tax/etc. accomplish absolutely nothing and are worthless talking points Obama sanctimoniously harps on to make middle class and poor Americans think he really wants to increase the rich's tax burden. For that matter, the Republicans who really think Obama's goal is to heavily tax the rich and make them pay a lot more is even more stupid.
The sales tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as they only spend a tiny portion of their total income (sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes there is), and the regular income tax wealthy people pay is meaningless as their regular income is a small portion of their total income. Both of those are drops in the bucket for them.
The two really big problems are cap gains and estate taxes. Capital gains should be taxed as regular income and the way people get to shelter their cap gains income needs to change. The tax holidays people get where they can convert their IRA into a Roth IRA when Roth IRAs were meant to only have a max $5,000 annual contribution are a complete joke and they only benefit the absolute wealthiest. The estate tax is also a joke because of how easy it is for estate planners to lower the tax value of people's estates. A good estate planner can take an estate worth $100,000,000 and reduce its tax value to under the $5,000,000 exception. Until this country starts taxing the out of cap gains and chopping high net worth estates in half every time someone dies, the tax code will be completely ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
