And would it kill you, on April 15th..

[hippiewannabe]

...to say thank you to the 5% who pay 60% of the taxes?




I sent you all the money I have with my extension, and will settle up, with interest, in October.

[glasseye]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. : )

[Lanval]

The 5% pay 60% ~ so be it. That's still vastly, VASTLY less than they paid in the years following WWII when the top tax rate in the US was between 80-90%. But hey, that only led to the rise of the greatest economy the world has ever seen, which was accompanied by a rise in the living standards of ALL the people. Because back then the rich knew that while they paid more taxes than others, they reaped benefits in even greater measure. But the spoiled, selfish rich of today see no reason to give back any of what they've taken. And, by the way, this is for you:

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilen ... 3-7-14.pdf

So here's my question: When the rich, elite and powerful (Princeton) agree that the rich, elite and powerful are disproportionately in control of the system, bending it to their will and enriching themselves through their manipulation... does that undercut your simplistic claims?

Also, here's a nice little bit on how the wealthy stick us all with the bill while they take their money out of the country! Such great Americans, these people!

http://www.upworthy.com/what-some-folks ... can?c=slt1

[Cindy]

Lanval,

=D>

Cindy

[Lanval]

Lanval,

=D>

Cindy

Cindy, thank you. Probably you should be upbraiding me for my strident rhetoric... looking again at what I wrote, I imagine that's not going to persuade much. I'd be interested in seeing you weigh in though, on the historicity of taxes, the wealthy and so on. I imagine your take on the "Gilded Age" and the reformist response in the period at the start of the twentieth century would offer some enlightening parallels and insights (and the post-war period too, I bet).

Yours,

ML

[yondermtn]

I prepared 200+ 1040s this season. Lot's of people paying their fair share.

[airkooledchris]

it would kill my sense of self respect

[asiab3]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. : )

http://gizmodo.com/how-to-lie-with-data ... 1563576606

;)

[ruckman101]

Are you suggesting those in poverty aren't paying their fair share Lanval?

neal

[Lanval]

Are you suggesting those in poverty aren't paying their fair share Lanval?

neal

I don't see anything in my post that suggests that conclusion, but for clarity's sake, "no". A scaled tax rate is meant to recognize that those who earn proportionally more do so in a context where a good portion of what they earn is based on the use of things that they did not pay all, or even the largest part of. The obvious example would be a man that owns a trucking company. While the consumers are certainly benefiting from the trucking company's use of the roads, the owner benefits far more and far more directly. Further his trucks cause a larger portion of damage to the roads (and that's only one piece of a much more complex infrastructure that the company relies upon), so he has a larger tax responsibility. The poor pay, if anything, too much.

[ruckman101]

It looks like a theoretical chart, as I suspect the highest earners in theory contribute that much, but that the reality is much much different.

neal

[hippiewannabe]

Stridency isn’t the problem, inaccuracy is.

Don’t confuse marginal tax rates with actual taxes paid. The fact is, the percentage of the taxes paid by the wealthy is higher now than it was at the end of the Clinton presidency, and higher than it was in the ‘50s.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays- ... taxes.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1554982808

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

Very few people ever actually paid those ridiculously high rates. Why would they? They used all kinds of tricks that served no economic purpose, only gaming the system to reduce taxes.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

People forget that when Reagan reduced tax rates, he also closed loopholes and reduced deductions. Now say it with me, slowly; when the rates were reduced, the amount of money collected from the wealthy went up.

This also explains some of the perceived increase in inequality. These statistics are all based on tax returns. When rates were so high, people did all kinds of tricks to reduce or hide income being reported to the IRS, or passed up income making opportunities. When the rates were made more reasonable, people were more willing to work and take chances to make income, and were more willing to just report the income and pay the tax. So part of the increase in income to the top earners comes from them just being willing to report it and pay taxes on it.

Economic growth in the ‘50s was pretty good, on par with the mid-‘80s. But a big part of that was the need to rebuild the world after WWII, and the U.S. being the only place that had a functioning economy. The growth was despite the crazy tax rates, and would have been better with more economically rational tax policy.

[Bleyseng]

"These statistics are all based on tax returns. When rates were so high, people did all kinds of tricks to reduce or hide income being reported to the IRS, or passed up income making opportunities. When the rates were made more reasonable, people were more willing to work and take chances to make income, and were more willing to just report the income and pay the tax. So part of the increase in income to the top earners comes from them just being willing to report it and pay taxes on it.

Economic growth in the ‘50s was pretty good, on par with the mid-‘80s. But a big part of that was the need to rebuild the world after WWII, and the U.S. being the only place that had a functioning economy. The growth was despite the crazy tax rates, and would have been better with more economically rational tax policy."

Now that is a bunch of BS! Everyone avoids paying as much taxes as possible using whatever loopholes. The mid'80's? Were you there working? It sucked in my field as there was a huge long recession going on......

[Amskeptic]

Hippiewannabee, income taxes are the canard that the wealthy always bring up with that hurt look in their eye, "we pay almost all the taxes you free loaders!" This allows them to be contemptuous, to give themselves a pass, to ignore reality, to continue their predations.

In fact, if you look at how much "labor time" the rich must commit to their survival needs, versus the amount of "labor time" the poor must devote to their survival needs, you find that the poor have to devote endlessly more hours to their work. A minimum wage worker must give over a hundred hours per month of their precious time on Earth to have shelter, while a top earner must work 30 seconds to cover that poor worker's shelter expenses. A minimum wage worker must devote more of their precious time on Earth to cover the fees and charges and sales taxes and food expenses and new nickle/dime expenses from states starved of Federal support (since corporate tax receipts have fallen dramatically from 27% of all Federal revenues to less than 8%). Today's rich people ahve to devote less time than ever to survival needs, while the rest of us are actually working harder for less. 1969's minimum wage would be almost $22.00/hr, yet today's workers are almost twice as productive.

The rich are getting richer, Hippiewannabee, while the poor are getting poorer. That is a fact. Your charts are hopelessly useless in our search for solutions. They are, in fact, obfuscation.
Colin

[Cindy]

Lanval, I know what you mean about "strident rhetoric," but I have some thoughts on that.

I was reading Wendell Berry one year--everything I could get my hands on--and I found myself getting very uncomfortable with his fury. I'd been in grad school for a while and had become accustomed to a cleaner, more critical voice. And yet, if you know anything about Berry, he's hard to refute. So I asked my favorite history professor about it. I said, "I've learned that strong, knee-jerk opinions won't get me as far as good critical thinking, but isn't there a place, somewhere, for our truly righteous anger?"

I loved his answer (and it made my crush on him far worse):

"Critical thinking and a 'rational' assessment of a particular issue are important but should be balanced by the passion Wendell Berry brings to his work. Without passion we are neither fully human nor humane."

So I always think of that, no matter the issue I'm debating.

Cindy