The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..21~22~23 [Next]
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Some argue that reducing taxes for the wealthy will generate more jobs by allowing business owners to hire more people and to grow their business. If that's true, then why have jobs disappeared since Bush enacted the tax cuts in 2001? (meanwhile, the wealth of the top 2% has dramatically increased) Theoretically, we should be swimming in jobs by now.

Personally, and as someone who makes a modest (VERY modest) 5 figure salary, I would gladly switch salaries/tax rates with someone who makes more than 250K and scoffs at a 39% tax rate. But that's just me. How many 250K and above earners do you think would want to switch with me?

The pain in the nation that has been felt for the past 10 years has been felt by the lower and middle classes - not by the top 2% of the country. Nor would they feel any pain if they had to pay a few percent more in taxes. It's hard not to see greed as a motivating factor. Especially in the current economic climate, and considering that the deficit is the number 1 priority of most conservatives.

Anyway, this is a tough one and I would be willing to make concessions. Just not sure where to draw the line. Instead of 39%, would conservatives be OK with 38%? 37%? Wasn't it 50% in the 1980s? And even higher before that?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Carrie Sue
View Profile
Veteran user
Auburn, MI
332 Posts

Profile of Carrie Sue
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 12:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I actually think that to some degree, a progressive tax is "fair," because of the disparity not in income, but in disposable income. I do think that someone who needs 95% of his income to reach a subsistence level of living should pay a smaller percentage of that income in tax than someone who needs 1% of his income to do the same.

With respect to the current scheme, though...the top 1% pay something like 37% of all income tax collected. And it's supposed to be an "Ah ha!" moment that deductions and tax cuts disproportionately help them?


But those deductions have largely been done away with since the 70's when the top marginal rate was 70%. Ronald Reagan took it down to 28% and started the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history. Now the rate is creeping back up again, and I don't doubt that some guilty liberals would love to see a top tax rate upwards of 90% again like it was under President Kennedy.

But would they voluntarily write a check for 90% of their income to Uncle Sam today? Hardly. If they really believed what they said, they should.

By the way, the flat income tax would be progressive. Here's how:

Hypothetical flat income tax: 17%
Hypothetical standard exemptions:
Individual - $12,000
Married - $24,000
Dependent children under 18 - $5,000 each.

Couple #1: Married with two kids, income $35,000.
Exemption discount: $34,000.
Taxable income: $1,000.
Tax: $170.
Percentage of income paid in income taxes: 0.49%.

Couple #2: Married with two kids, income 335,000.
Exemption discount: $34,000.
Taxable income: $301,000.
Tax: $51,170.
Percentage of income paid in income taxes: 15%.

Get the picture? The rich couple is paying over 30 times as much as the middle class family as a percentage of their income. The lower bracket, as it were, is paying a much lower percentage of their income in taxes. Sounds pretty "progressive" to me.

Carrie
www.proximityillusions.com

ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE!
Carrie Sue
View Profile
Veteran user
Auburn, MI
332 Posts

Profile of Carrie Sue
By the way ...

The United States did see decent job growth after the Bush tax cuts.

http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/200......b-Growth

Carrie
www.proximityillusions.com

ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE!
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:

Laffer curve. Just wanted to throw it out because someone will bring it up anyhow.

Indeed. Carrie already had earlier in the thread. Anyway, the problem is that people take a theoretical idea like the Laffer curve to defend their tax policy ideas, and ignore the fact that the theoretical construct of the Laffer curve simply ignores / violates reality. They also ignore the fact that there is more than one shape of non-linear curve out there available to work with (i.e., Laffer's choice is one of many, and the others are more realistic).

Excerpted from elsewhere online:

The Laffer curve is a compelling economic concept. It claims that government revenue as a function of tax rates is shaped as an inverted-U. This means that, at first, raising the tax rate from zero will increase tax rates. However, there is some tax rate which maximizes government revenue (but not necessarily social welfare). When tax rates are increased beyond this point, however, tax revenues decrease because as income taxes rise, the disincentive to work becomes sufficiently great that the higher per hour amount of tax receipts will be more than offset by the workers incentive to work less hours.

The theory is theoretically sound and elegant, but do economists actually know what the tax rate which maximizes government revenue will be?

The mathematician Martin Gardner claims not [via] his satirical construct called the neo-Laffer curve. “The neo-Laffer curve matches the original curve near the two extremes of 0% and 100%, but rapidly collapses into an incomprehensible snarl of chaos at the middle. Gardner based his curve on actual US economic data collected in a fifty year period by statistician Persi Diaconis.”

Gardner makes the sound point that the Laffer curves is very appropriate for theoretical analysis and as a pedagogical tool, but it does not sufficiently reflect reality in order for politicians to make tax policy based on the construct.

---

Another article on the Laffer curve:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/07......from.php

I recommend reading the whole thing.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
The top marginal tax rate was 39.6% for the entire Clinton years (it was previously 31%). The unemployment rate was 6.91% when he came in and it went down to 3.97% when he left office 8 years later.

Bush came in at a 4.76% unemployment rate, lowered the tax rate to 35% (where it's been ever since) and unemployment has gone up to 9.6% (or whatever the current rate is).

Summary - top tier tax rates are higher under Clinton, but unemployment goes down, and tax rates are lower under Bush but unemployment goes up.

Total jobs created under Clinton = 19 million.
Total jobs created under Bush = 6 million


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
If anyone cares I'm still looking for a job so if you have any connections in Reno or Carson City.....
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:17, R.S. wrote:
The top marginal tax rate was 39.6% for the entire Clinton years (it was previously 31%). The unemployment rate was 6.91% when he came in and it went down to 3.97% when he left office 8 years later.

Bush came in at a 4.76% unemployment rate, lowered the tax rate to 35% (where it's been ever since) and unemployment has gone up to 9.6% (or whatever the current rate is).

Summary - top tier tax rates are higher under Clinton, but unemployment goes down, and tax rates are lower under Bush but unemployment goes up.

Total jobs created under Clinton = 19 million.
Total jobs created under Bush = 6 million


Ron


On the other hand, Reagan slashed the top marginal tax rate, and unemployment went from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. How are the cherries over on your side of the fence?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 20:27, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:17, R.S. wrote:
The top marginal tax rate was 39.6% for the entire Clinton years (it was previously 31%). The unemployment rate was 6.91% when he came in and it went down to 3.97% when he left office 8 years later.

Bush came in at a 4.76% unemployment rate, lowered the tax rate to 35% (where it's been ever since) and unemployment has gone up to 9.6% (or whatever the current rate is).

Summary - top tier tax rates are higher under Clinton, but unemployment goes down, and tax rates are lower under Bush but unemployment goes up.

Total jobs created under Clinton = 19 million.
Total jobs created under Bush = 6 million

Ron


On the other hand, Reagan slashed the top marginal tax rate, and unemployment went from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. How are the cherries over on your side of the fence?

So from this evidence it appears the connection between tax rates and unemployment is unclear at best.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Destiny
View Profile
Inner circle
1429 Posts

Profile of Destiny
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 17:55, Carrie Sue wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 17:34, Destiny wrote:
And is she not forgetting the largesse that is visited upon her from the public purse?

Would she like that to be the first national saving?


You people are never going to let go of that bone, are you? You'd rather flaunt my failures in my face than actually discuss ideas.

Carrie


Because it goes to the basic flaw in your argument - taxes cannot be cut without cutting spending.

You have often derided Social Security and Welfare spending as an unsuitable use of government funds, while at the same time being a receipient.

Everyone seems to want taxes cut as a result of a cut in spending on programs that benefit other people.

I actually agree that Western governments have become too big, unwieldy, are overreaching and tax too highly. I have no doubt the current systems are in the long run, unsustainable.

We all look at the Chinese economic miracle, and forget that to get where they are, they had to leave some people to fall. Those who could help advance the economy have flourished - those who could not were left to their own devices and forgotten. Is that how you wish your country to advance? I recall reading somewhere that China has 100 million homeless people. If that is true, it demonstrates that the Chinese communists are in fact the most ruthless capitalists on the planet.

But returning to the West, if we are to believably agitate for lower taxes we must be willing to put up our hand and volunteer to be a casualty of lower spending instead of just whinging about other people getting a slice of the pie.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 20:58, Destiny wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 17:55, Carrie Sue wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-10 17:34, Destiny wrote:
And is she not forgetting the largesse that is visited upon her from the public purse?

Would she like that to be the first national saving?


You people are never going to let go of that bone, are you? You'd rather flaunt my failures in my face than actually discuss ideas.

Carrie


Because it goes to the basic flaw in your argument - taxes cannot be cut without cutting spending.

You have often derided Social Security and Welfare spending as an unsuitable use of government funds, while at the same time being a receipient.

Everyone seems to want taxes cut as a result of a cut in spending on programs that benefit other people.

I actually agree that Western governments have become too big, unwieldy, are overreaching and tax too highly. I have no doubt the current systems are in the long run, unsustainable.

We all look at the Chinese economic miracle, and forget that to get where they are, they had to leave some people to fall. Those who could help advance the economy have flourished - those who could not were left to their own devices and forgotten. Is that how you wish your country to advance? I recall reading somewhere that China has 100 million homeless people. If that is true, it demonstrates that the Chinese communists are in fact the most ruthless capitalists on the planet.

But returning to the West, if we are to believably agitate for lower taxes we must be willing to put up our hand and volunteer to be a casualty of lower spending instead of just whinging about other people getting a slice of the pie.


Well, unless we get into another discussion of lower tax rates vs. lower tax revenues, but that last time we did that, the 80's came up and there were some really creative definitions of "revenues" brought into the discussion.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Funny how these discussions descend into claims of single causes for complex phenomena--but only when it backs up our prior beliefs.

Can anyone here really make a case that a particular US president's tax policy is responsible for changes in employment rates during the presidency? Don't you have a tiny suspicion that things like, say, global commodity prices, trading relationships, wars or crop successes and failures MIGHT have a a little influence?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
No because because it works the other way around silly: A particular US president first creates a crisis, something like a new Pearl Harbour, then takes the country to war, which cost the people trillions but makes the profiteers trillions, and then the profiteers commit outright fraud causing mass unemployment and then he gives the profiteers trillions for doing that, and then he says to the people we owe the profiteers trillions and you lot are going to have pay it so I am raising your tax's and now you are all slaves of the profiteers, and the profiteers buy everything up for pennies on the dollar and get cheap labour as the people are desperate. That MIGHT have a little influence?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
I think Tommy Xe-s* what's going on.



* Pronounced "Zee", formerly known as Blackwater.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1199 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I'm no engineer, but relying on successful hijackings seems like a pretty poor way to demolish American skyscrapers in fake terrorist attacks. Maybe Michael Moore arranged 9-11 so he could say that Bush arranged it.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
http://www.laprogressive.com/economic-eq......ents-do/

Annual
Job
Growth………Party……………President
8.8%………….Democratic…….Roosevelt (1939-war)
3.5%…………..Democratic…….Johnson
3.3%…………..Democratic…….Carter
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Clinton
2.6%…………..Democratic…….Roosevelt (wartime)
2.4%…………..Democratic…….Truman
2.3%…………..Republican.…….Reagan
2.1%…………..Republican……..Nixon
2.1% …………..Democratic…….Kennedy
0.8%…………..Republican…….Ford
0.5%…………..Republican…….Eisenhower
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush II
0.4%…………..Republican…….Bush


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2010-12-12 01:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm no engineer, but relying on successful hijackings seems like a pretty poor way to demolish American skyscrapers in fake terrorist attacks. Maybe Michael Moore arranged 9-11 so he could say that Bush arranged it.


Fake??

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Carrie Sue
View Profile
Veteran user
Auburn, MI
332 Posts

Profile of Carrie Sue
Looks fake to me.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Carter created more jobs than Reagan, when Carter left this nation in what he referred to as a national malaise?

Wrong number. I don't buy it.

Carrie
www.proximityillusions.com

ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE!
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5138 Posts

Profile of landmark
Under Reagan the national debt tripled.
Under Reagan, he AMT, which was meant to close tax loopholes for the very rich, was amended to apply to middle class taxpayers, thus shifting the tax burden to the middle class.

Surprised about your reply Carrie. Even though I rarely agree with you, you at least try to provide some kind of evidence or explanation in your statements.
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
176 Posts

Profile of R.S.
WHOA!!! Are some here implying that we weren't attacked by terrorists on 9/11?? What's that all about? Please clarify.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-12 09:08, Carrie Sue wrote:
Looks fake to me.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Carter created more jobs than Reagan, when Carter left this nation in what he referred to as a national malaise?

Wrong number. I don't buy it.

Carrie


Do you have reliable evidence to support your contention?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL