|
Obama, for the win. (pg. 66)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
...but the tax system we have been living with for half a century or better clearly favor those who have more... |
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. In the U.S., taxes on the top 10% of earners account for something like 70% of total tax revenue. And taxes on the top 1% account for something like 20% of total income tax revenue, if I remember correctly.
We still have a progressive tax system (which is on balance a good thing, I think). |
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. In the U.S., taxes on the top 10% of earners account for something like 70% of total tax revenue. And taxes on the top 1% account for something like 20% of total income tax revenue, if I remember correctly.
We still have a progressive tax system (which is on balance a good thing, I think). |
That's what I was thinking as well. I really need to research this stuff. At 31, it's probably time I started pay far more attention to the asshats in charge! |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. In the U.S., taxes on the top 10% of earners account for something like 70% of total tax revenue. And taxes on the top 1% account for something like 20% of total income tax revenue, if I remember correctly.
We still have a progressive tax system (which is on balance a good thing, I think). |
That's all fine and well if we're talking about total tax revenue, but as a function of percentage of income I still don't think the top 10% of earners are paying what they should be. |
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
That's all fine and well if we're talking about total tax revenue, but as a function of percentage of income I still don't think the top 10% of earners are paying what they should be. |
I understand where you are coming from, but isn't the flip side of that the following: by "over" taxing those who take risks and thus earn huge incomes as a reward for taking those risks going to eventually stifle any new business development and risk taking?
If only it were all in black and white rather than these shades of gray... |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
That's all fine and well if we're talking about total tax revenue, but as a function of percentage of income I still don't think the top 10% of earners are paying what they should be. |
The top marginal tax rate is currently 35%.
Back in the post-WWII years, in the '50s through '60s, it was generally 85% - 90%. :o |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zoso
I understand where you are coming from, but isn't the flip side of that the following: by "over" taxing those who take risks and thus earn huge incomes as a reward for taking those risks going to eventually stifle any new business development and risk taking?
If only it were all in black and white rather than these shades of gray... |
I don't see how... :conf:
Taking risks like opening small businesses don't particularly pay off well for most in the first place, I just don't see how taxing people who are doing so well already changes all that much for them besides a few dollars (relative to their total income) at the end of the tax year.
It isn't as if it will change the quality of life for that top 10% of earners - the only reason I see not to tax them more is their own greed, which hardly seems reasonable at all. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The top marginal tax rate is currently 35%.
Back in the post-WWII years, in the '50s through '60s, it was generally 85% - 90%. :o |
Ok, fair enough - I won't even ask for a source as, I did say I didn't particularly have that much knowledge on the subject to begin with.
And I'd be fine with heading back to 85%-90% (though I would like some sort of background on that whole situation - if for no other reason than I can't believe there was ever a point in our history where anyone was being taxed out of 90% of their income - unless I'm again misunderstanding what you mean). |
|
|
| Zoso |
| Gotcha. I'm just thinking out loud here, really. I have much more self-education to perform. Just trying to look at all the angles and approach things with an open mind. ;) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Ok, fair enough - I won't even ask for a source as, I did say I didn't particularly have that much knowledge on the subject to begin with.
And I'd be fine with heading back to 85%-90% (though I would like some sort of background on that whole situation - if for no other reason than I can't believe there was ever a point in our history where anyone was being taxed out of 90% of their income - unless I'm again misunderstanding what you mean). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income...eral_income_tax
If you don't trust Wiki, you can Google "historical top marginal income tax rates" and get similar results. ;)
The high rates were probably a hangover from WWII, I'm guessing -- since WWII was actually a formally declared state of war, taxes skyrocketed. The pols liked having so much money to spend and didn't want to give it up. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income...eral_income_tax
If you don't trust Wiki, you can Google "historical top marginal income tax rates" and get similar results. ;)
The high rates were probably a hangover from WWII, I'm guessing -- since WWII was actually a formally declared state of war, taxes skyrocketed. The pols liked having so much money to spend and didn't want to give it up. |
I actually just wound up at that page after asking, as well as this one: http://www.treasury.gov/education/f...xes/ustax.shtml
Which pretty much says the same thing - and I guess I'm too surprised, but also think that the 50's and early 60's were definitely good times for the U.S. - and the fact that since 68 it's basically halved itself every 15 years makes me wonder what the long term effects of continually lowering taxes has been on the U.S. economy.
And people who look at Wikipedia as across the board "untrustworthy" don't know how citations work - I do. ;)
Edit: And hey - doesn't that whole page kind of jibe with my assessment of the tax system over the course of the last half century favoring the wealthy?
:conf:
Seems to in my mind, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Edit: And hey - doesn't that whole page kind of jibe with my assessment of the tax system over the course of the last half century favoring the wealthy?
:conf:
Seems to in my mind, but I could be wrong. |
Maybe. But the fact that wealthy people are still paying a much larger portion of their income than other people makes it seems kind of inaccurate to me to say that the tax system "favors the wealthy," when it is still clearly progressive. It has certainly gotten closer to "favoring the wealthy" over the past forty years or so, though. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Maybe. But the fact that wealthy people are still paying a much larger portion of their income than other people makes it seems kind of inaccurate to me to say that the tax system "favors the wealthy," when it is still clearly progressive. It has certainly gotten closer to "favoring the wealthy" over the past forty years or so, though. |
I really don't think it's that inaccurate - it just depends on what you think a fair percentage of their income to tax is, so it's all going to be a matter of what degree of taxation is, in your opinion, fair based on income.
The fact alone that the rate of taxation has been halved as often as it has the past 40 or so years also just reeks of continued "tax cuts" - for everyone - and I don't think that's particularly good for anyone, but especially not the lower social classes (lower taxes = fewer government welfare programs = fewer opportunities for those at the lowest class and no affect on the wealthy). |
|
|
|
|
