Let's go back to a time when MAGAs want to go back to and guess the reaction to this picture

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
You started talking about taxes
I responded to someone talking about 1950s tax rates. They’re talking specifically about income tax rates.

Do you think someone is arguing to restore 1950s FICA rates? Because I’ve not seen anyone propose cutting SSI and Medicare funding.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,149
71,867
113
I responded to someone talking about 1950s tax rates. They’re talking specifically about income tax rates.

Do you think someone is arguing to restore 1950s FICA rates? Because I’ve not seen anyone propose cutting SSI and Medicare funding.
I pointed out that the middle class/upper middle class was picking up the 1% slack, you spewed a Fox talking point. I delivered the good. The graph in the link that I posted shows that I'm right. People like me are carrying the load for the ultra wealthy.
You seem ok with that.
 

MuscoHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2005
20,083
31,491
113

Yep, he’s just like all of us! One of the people!


trump-family-portrait.jpg
 
Nov 28, 2010
80,083
33,333
113
Maryland
I mean it makes sense when you have something like 1% of the country holding over 30% of the total wealth. The rich have much more now so they will and should be taxed accordingly…and even now I don’t believe that has kept up with the changes in income inequality.
Yep, let's see those percentages corrected for wealth and income.

Are the people who own half paying half?

As a lefty, I think they should be paying a good bit more than half, but if I had to bet, I'd bet they are paying less than half. But I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
Hey look, you're back to focusing on only income tax, shocking.
Yes, that’s what I responded to.

and high taxes on the wealthy

What tax was at 90% in 1950? Do you think FICA had different tax rates for different income levels?
 

theiacowtipper

HR Legend
Gold Member
Feb 17, 2004
14,761
13,278
113
We're collecting a higher percentage of the wealth produced by the country with lower rates ...idiot.

If we had 1950s federal spending levels we'd have a surplus to argue over.

If you want to discourage economic activity and collect a smaller percentage of GDP in taxes, then demand higher rates.
No Medicare. No Medicaid. We also didn’t have as big of interest payments to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,149
71,867
113
Yes, that’s what I responded to.

and high taxes on the wealthy

What tax was at 90% in 1950? Do you think FICA had different tax rates for different income levels?
Your own graphics show that income tax is not the only tax burden and yet you play dumb to try to prove a point. I find conversing with you to be tiresome as usual.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
I'm pretty sure it's not binary
In a sense, the Laffer Curve is.

A 0% income tax rate collects zero dollars.
A 100% income tax rate collects zero dollars, except from whomever decides to volunteer all their time to the government.

There is an income tax rate that maximizes collections. Tax rates above that number will result in behavior changes that reduce collections to an amount that would correspond to what a lower rate would collect.

If you can collect more taxes with a rate that is lower than 90% it is economic malpractice to pursue the higher rate and deny capital to the economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
Nov 28, 2010
80,083
33,333
113
Maryland
The result of income tax rate changes have only become more progressive since 1980
I don't think that's the correct interpretation of your chart for the reason @HawkRCID outlined. The percentage of the total from the rich may have gone up, but that's because they have more, not because the rate is more progressive. The rates have become less progressive even if you only look at income tax, and even more so if you notice the increased reliance on flatter taxes and borrowing.

You probably aren't wrong that the rich pay a higher share of the budget than in the past, but not a higher share of what they have.
 
Feb 9, 2013
21,255
59,498
113
In a sense, the Laffer Curve is.

A 0% income tax rate collects zero dollars.
A 100% income tax rate collects zero dollars, except from whomever decides to volunteer all their time to the government.

There is an income tax rate that maximizes collections. Tax rates above that number will result in behavior changes that reduce collections to an amount that would correspond to what a lower rate would collect.

If you can collect more taxes with a rate that is lower than 90% it is economic malpractice to pursue the higher rate and deny capital to the economy.
Nobody stops trying to earn just because the government will take a larger percentage of those additional earnings. What behavioral changes are you envisioning?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
I don't think that's the correct interpretation of your chart for the reason @HawkRCID outlined. The percentage of the total from the rich may have gone up, but that's because they have more, not because the rate is more progressive. The rates have become less progressive even if you only look at income tax, and even more so if you notice the increased reliance on flatter taxes and borrowing.

You probably aren't wrong that the rich pay a higher share of the budget than in the past, but not a higher share of what they have.
I said the result is more progressive.
You’re focused on the rates, but who cares if you have punitive rates when they collect less money? What is the point of higher tax rates that reduce tax collection and capital for the economy to fund growth?

If could accurately ‘see’ the Laffer Curve and thereby knew that a 35% tax collects as much money as 75% rate, not going with the lower rate reduces capital available to the economy at no net tax collection advantage for the government. The result of reduced capital is reduced investment and growth, thereby creating a poorer future than we’d have otherwise (and thereby a smaller future tax base).

Punitive tax rates are dumb policy.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,929
113
Nobody stops trying to earn just because the government will take a larger percentage of those additional earnings. What behavioral changes are you envisioning?
Put my money in a risky venture with high return, but 90% tax rate, or put my money in a less risky, but tax free muni?
Punitive rates change behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
Nov 28, 2010
80,083
33,333
113
Maryland
I said the result is more progressive.
You’re focused on the rates, but who cares if you have punitive rates when they collect less money? What is the point of higher tax rates that reduce tax collection and capital for the economy to fund growth?

If could accurately ‘see’ the Laffer Curve and thereby knew that a 35% tax collects as much money as 75% rate, not going with the lower rate reduces capital available to the economy at no net tax collection advantage for the government. The result of reduced capital is reduced investment and growth, thereby creating a poorer future than we’d have otherwise (and thereby a smaller future tax base).

Punitive tax rates are dumb policy.
I'm one of the few libs I know who thought the Laffer curve made sense.

Little noticed story many years back, Laffer was asked what he thought the optimum top rate would be. His answer, iirc, was 48%.

If he's more-or-less correct, we have room to make the rate schedule a lot more progressive.

Nor am I saying that we should automatically raise rates to 48%. What we need is sufficient revenues to pay the bills - whatever the bills are. So we should use the LC to help optimize the schedule to rates that produces those revenues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97

Latest posts