Trickle down economics? Right :rolleyes:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/04/taxes/#more-6264
Source of this information apart from the obvious ‘I’m a guy with a blog acting like I know about taxes’?
lets just tax 100%, govt will make untold amounts of money , therefore the economy will be good right?
All you need to look at is how businesses are getting the hell out of places like CA and NY and getting settled into states with much lower taxes. GDP is a poor indicator of how well the economy is doing regardless.
The top tier pay zero taxes, and the bottom tier pay zero taxes (actually usually they’re a negative on the tax side)
It’s why you need a fair simplified tax system, a minimum of 15% or so for all, things like EITC are BS and simply a form of welfare. And are tax laws are should fit onto a single page, this is the reason the super rich can go with out paying taxes because the laws a written to allow it.
And no I don’t consider social security and medicare welfare, as long as you’ve paid into the system, if you’re 19 collecting social security because you hurt your back riding an atv, well than you’re just a welfare recipient.
So you’re going to take ONE data point, and come to a conclusion?
sales tax system would be better than income taxes. Govt should not have the right to take from someone’s work. Sales tax is voluntary and truly taxes everyone. Even an illegal immigrant and drug dealer who makes black market income still has to buy stuff to eat.
By the way those graphs don’t make a strong argument.
Agree, accept for things that are required to sustain life, food, water etc.
Thats a HELL of an idea, I,ll run it buy Nancy.
In philosophy what you provided is an example of slippery slope logic. You failed to provide the “whole” picture.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913–2003
Introduction
This is a table of the top marginal tax rate faced by married couples for most of the last century in the US.
Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,
[ul]
[li]the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the “top bracket,” listed below as “Taxable income over–”); [/li]> [li]the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate. [/li]> [/ul]
The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.
So thanks for starting with misleading information.
Maybe some facts?:
From The Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, April 1996
The economic benefits of the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981 were summarized by President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.” Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.
Also feel free to read the following:
In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.
Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
US Treasury report on 2007 Bush Budget presented by Robert Carroll, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis:
Lesson No. 1: Lower tax rates lead to a more prosperous economy.
According to the Treasury analysis, a permanent extension of the recent tax cuts leads to a long-run increase in the capital stock of 2.3%, and a long-run increase in GNP of 0.7%. In today’s economy, such a GNP expansion would mean an extra $90 billion a year that the nation can spend on consumer goods to raise living standards, or capital goods to maintain prosperity. More than two-thirds of this expansion occurs within 10 years.
Lesson No 2: Not all taxes are created equal for purposes of promoting growth.
Some tax rate reductions have a profound impact on incentives and economic growth, while others have minimal or even adverse effects. The Treasury staff reports particularly large bang-for-the-buck from the reductions in dividends and capital-gains taxes. Even though these tax cuts account for less than 20% of the static revenue loss from permanent tax relief, they produce more than half of the long-run growth.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are the tax reductions from the 10% bracket, child credit and marriage-penalty relief. These tax cuts put money in people’s pockets when, during the recent recession, the economy needed a short-run boost to aggregate demand. They also fulfill other objectives, such as making the tax system more progressive. But they illustrate that not all tax cuts promote long-run growth. Treasury estimates that without the tax reductions from the 10% bracket, child credit and marriage-penalty relief, the long-run increase in GNP would be larger – 1.1% rather than 0.7%.
Lesson No 3: How tax relief is financed is crucial for its economic impact.
Like all of us, the government eventually has to pay its bills. In technical terms, the government faces an intertemporal budget constraint that ties the present value of government spending to the present value of tax revenue. This means that when taxes are cut, other offsetting adjustments are required to make the numbers add up.
The Treasury’s main analysis assumes that lower tax revenue will over time be accompanied by reduced spending on government consumption. But the report also shows what happens if spending cuts are not forthcoming. In this alternative scenario, a permanent extension of recent tax relief is assumed to lead to an eventual increase in income taxes.
The results are strikingly different. Instead of increasing by 0.7% in the long run, GNP now falls by 0.9%. Tax relief is good for growth, but only if the tax reductions are financed by spending restraint. One exception: Lower taxes on dividends and capital gains promote growth, even if they require higher income taxes.
These Treasury results are sure to spark debate and further research. While the Treasury report is not the last word on dynamic analysis, it is a big step toward a more realistic view of tax policy.
Feel free to throw up some additional incomplete information or partial charts.
Did i come to a conclusion? No. Just thought the charts were mildly interesting
Yes. I believe you did…
Trickle down economics? Right :rolleyes:
Thats your idea of a conclusion? Whatever you want to read into i guess.
You posed a question (thread topic). Provided data (graphs). Came to a conclusion (Trickle down economics? Right :rolleyes:).
Anyways whats the point of this thread if not? Is the point not to somehow show top income rates falling doesn’t lead to economic growth? You thought they were interesting? Then say so instead of coming off like you’re trying to make a point and come to some sort of conclusion to fit your progressive ideology of extremely high taxes on the rich.
I’ve seen this same argument by leftists countless times. As to somehow justify high taxation. What your chart doesn’t provide any data for is the general increase in taxes in that same time period. What were the state income taxes 50 years ago? Sales tax? Property tax? SS & Medicare? All the nickle and dime taxes we pay now? Did anybody really pay 90% or were there more deductions back then than now? If someone was a top income earner in 1950 what total percentage of their income went to taxes vs. 2010? With all the extra taxes that didn’t exist back then as they do today what about middle income earners? What percentage of their income went to taxes in 1950 vs. 2010?
ooooo, a couple of chart’s that promote higher tax rates! And I though economics was really hard. How about we operate on the principle that we shouldn’t steal from our rich neighbor’s to fund grossly dubious gov’t projects.
They’re not even mildly interesting. It looks like Congress came up with those…
I should close this thread for trolling but I think I’ll let these guys hammer home the facts.
you really don’t know a thing about my idealogy, please don’t pretend to. i know it makes it much easier for you, but i just don’t fit in your little box.
now you’re getting the point of the thread! all great questions that bear looking into. its about discussion. its not about winning or losing, right vs left, or any of that small minded BS.
apparently you didn’t read the link. that was exactly the point, that economics is more than a one sentence slogan, like low taxes=growth or high taxes=greater revenue. its a combination of many factors. and i fail to see how the charts promote higher tax rates.
I fail to understand how you feel there is any amount of credibility in the charts you are referring to or the claimed economical knowledge of the blog poster you linked to.