Taxes and the Economy
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Must have come from Facebook.
These kinds of comparisons fall short for me given the differences in what each had to deal with.
These kinds of comparisons fall short for me given the differences in what each had to deal with.
During the " Great Depression " years ( not this little " Great Recession " where even the poor have flat-screens, smart phones and 125 dollar Nikes ) the highest tax brackets ranged from a low of 63% to a high of 88%. According to your little copy/paste meme the Great Depression should therefore never have happened. In fact in the third year after the tax cuts total revenues were at an all time high. Tax cuts have and do lead to more total revenue.
These are all silly at some level. Yet some have truth, too.
My problem is that our cons are always telling us the simplistic versions that they like - variations on trickle-down, for the most part - and then calling everyone who doesn't agree ignorant on economics. So I have a chuckle when I stumble across something like this. Which is also simplistic but, let's face it, entirely true (if not the whole picture).
I absolutely agree that Clinton had a much easier presidency. But that doesn't change the fact that Bush's policies were disastrous - including the tax cuts, the war, and unwise deregulation. And, yes, Clinton gets some of the blame for the deregulation. It doesn't matter to me who did it, it was stupid.
It's been known to happen. But it's neither guaranteed, as your side keeps claiming, nor high probability.
I'll take your word for the latter. But you are definitely right on the former. Not just on tax matters, either. Science is pretty dependent on math, and Rs clearly suck at that, too.
Math and masturbation are linked per this thread: https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/hillary-barks-like-a-dog.99548/
Math, science, economics, pretty much anything requiring an education seems to be anathema to the present day Republican Party. They've all been programmed to believe that the world is out to get them, and that they can only trust the echo chamber to tell them the truth despite the reality of the world around them.
Can't fight simplistic comparisons with more simplistic comparisons. Just breeds more of the same.
The GOP sure has changed a lot since the days when Republican President Lincoln railed against the Know Nothings. Yes, I know that the Know Nothings didn't really know nothing. But today's Republicans actually do work to avoid knowing much. Plus the Know Nothings of both eras were anti-immigrant. So it's a better fit than you might think.
Yes they are. I have a farmer friend of mine (a rock-ribbed Republican) who once told me he always makes money when the Dems "are in power." And he has a Trump sign in his front yard.
Two things:
1) Tell it to the GOP; and
2) This is less simplistic than many. So I consider it nudging them from abjectly stupid oversimplification to somewhat more legitimate over-simplification.
It's an improvement. Improvements are good.
My uncle was a farmer and he told me the opposite.
Actually he made money just about every year under Presidents from both parties.
Ohhh...that's right...Repubbers don't have anything to do with this, do they? Why did Branstad tell Iowa GOPers NOT to vote for Cruz again?
The GOP don't listen either.
The problem is you don't know what the results would have been if they switched time frames or if 911 would have happened under Clinton.
I know a whole lot of farmers lost their farms in Iowa when Reagan took over...and they still voted for him! (Hence Hayden's "ANF" logo on the Iowa FB helmets.)My uncle was a farmer and he told me the opposite.
Actually he made money just about every year under Presidents from both parties.
Lost a banker or two too....so maybe this all worked itself out.
Its a point we make around here often, but can't be emphasized enough. Rs (and Ds) are completely different than they were in the time of Lincoln. They used to be the party of free labor, civil rights and progressivism. They pretty much gave all that legacy up with the election of Reagan when they became firmly the party of elite corporate and religious concerns.
This was in the 1860 Republican party platform.
A call for living wages secured by federal policy:
"we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence."
A protection for immigrant rights:
"the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired"
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29620
Well if he lived in Iowa since 1988 he has pretty much been guaranteed a good living.My uncle was a farmer and he told me the opposite.
Actually he made money just about every year under Presidents from both parties.
Once again top rates averaged around 70% from 1927 - 1945. Me, myself and I deem this significantly higher than the current 39%. Agree? Why the GREAT DEPRESSION, given the left-wing mantra that we can tax our way to prosperity? Now I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
What did Reagan do that caused all those farms to fail?I know a whole lot of farmers lost their farms in Iowa when Reagan took over...and they still voted for him! (Hence Hayden's "ANF" logo on the Iowa FB helmets.)
Lost a banker or two too....so maybe this all worked itself out.
My uncle always told me that he had to watch his debt very closely.
Deem all you want. You really don't want me to answer since you apparently are clueless concerning the time period.
In 1931, the highest marginal tax rate was 25% on incomes in excess of $100,000. It had been at hat level since 1925. In 1932, the marginal tax rate on incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 was increased to 56% - more than a 100% increase in this marginal tax rate. What's more, the top marginal tax rate went to 63% on incomes in excess of $1,000,000. So, if you were a million-dollar earner in 1931 and 1932, your marginal income tax rate increased by over 150%.
Look for yourself.
Now, here's the interesting thing...real GDP grew at a compound annual rate of growth of 9.4% from 1933 to 1937...after the massive tax hikes. So the idea that high taxes tanked the economy and brought about the Great Depression is...well...complete bullshyte.
Until 1932 the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was FAR lower than it is even today. And we had a depression. Maybe you would like to take a shot at explaining how, given the wing-nut mantra that low rates for the wealthy create jobs, we had the GREAT DEPRESSION with such low marginal rates. Weird, huh?
I'll hang up and not listen because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Deem all you want. You really don't want me to answer since you apparently are clueless concerning the time period.
In 1931, the highest marginal tax rate was 25% on incomes in excess of $100,000. It had been at hat level since 1925. In 1932, the marginal tax rate on incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 was increased to 56% - more than a 100% increase in this marginal tax rate. What's more, the top marginal tax rate went to 63% on incomes in excess of $1,000,000. So, if you were a million-dollar earner in 1931 and 1932, your marginal income tax rate increased by over 150%.
Look for yourself.
Now, here's the interesting thing...real GDP grew at a compound annual rate of growth of 9.4% from 1933 to 1937...after the massive tax hikes. So the idea that high taxes tanked the economy and brought about the Great Depression is...well...complete bullshyte.
Until 1932 the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was FAR lower than it is even today. And we had a depression. Maybe you would like to take a shot at explaining how, given the wing-nut mantra that low rates for the wealthy create jobs, we had the GREAT DEPRESSION with such low marginal rates. Weird, huh?
I'll hang up and not listen because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Reagan imposed a grain embargo and averaged about 11% a year inflation in his economy, plus interest rates were around 12% - 16%. It was called " stagflation " a new term that had never been seen before...................wait....my bad. That was Jimmy Carter.
Income Tax and the Top One Percent
Since the mid-1980s the top one percent of income tax filers has paid an increasing share of federal income tax, except during recessions.
Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The top one percent of income tax filers has seen its income increase from 11.3 percent to 22.8 percent of income reported to the IRS in the period from 1986 to 2007. But the share of federal income tax paid has increased from 25.8 percent of all individual income taxes in 1986 to a 40.1 percent share of the total in 2007.
When recessions hit, the rich earn less income and pay a smaller share of taxes. The income of the richest 1 percent dipped from 20.8 percent of reported income in 2000 to 17.5 percent in 2001, while their federal income tax payments dipped from 37.4 percent in 2000 to 33.4 percent in the recession year of 2002. In the Great Recession of 2007-09, the top one percent share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 17.1 percent of reported income. Their income tax share fell from 40.1 percent to 36.5 percent. See SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, SOI Bulletin article–Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares Table 5 for 1986-2009 and Table 3 for 2001-2011.
The Poor Pay Less
In good times and bad, the poor report less income and pay less federal income tax.
Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The lower half of income tax filers have reported a smaller and smaller share of income over the period 1986 to 2007. In 1986 they reported 16.7 percent of income reported to the IRS on their federal income tax forms; by 2007 this had shrunk to 12.2 percent. Income tax share declined by over 50 percent, from 6.5 percent share of total federal personal income tax paid in 1986 to 3.1 percent share of tax paid in 2007.
In the Great Recession of 2007-09 the share of federal income tax paid by the lower half has continued to decline. Income of the lower half declined to 7.40 percent of GDP in 2009 and federal income tax share declined to 2.25 percent of total collections.
See also here for more information on federal income tax rates and federal income tax shares.
Since the mid-1980s the top one percent of income tax filers has paid an increasing share of federal income tax, except during recessions.
Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The top one percent of income tax filers has seen its income increase from 11.3 percent to 22.8 percent of income reported to the IRS in the period from 1986 to 2007. But the share of federal income tax paid has increased from 25.8 percent of all individual income taxes in 1986 to a 40.1 percent share of the total in 2007.
When recessions hit, the rich earn less income and pay a smaller share of taxes. The income of the richest 1 percent dipped from 20.8 percent of reported income in 2000 to 17.5 percent in 2001, while their federal income tax payments dipped from 37.4 percent in 2000 to 33.4 percent in the recession year of 2002. In the Great Recession of 2007-09, the top one percent share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 17.1 percent of reported income. Their income tax share fell from 40.1 percent to 36.5 percent. See SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, SOI Bulletin article–Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares Table 5 for 1986-2009 and Table 3 for 2001-2011.
The Poor Pay Less
In good times and bad, the poor report less income and pay less federal income tax.
Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The lower half of income tax filers have reported a smaller and smaller share of income over the period 1986 to 2007. In 1986 they reported 16.7 percent of income reported to the IRS on their federal income tax forms; by 2007 this had shrunk to 12.2 percent. Income tax share declined by over 50 percent, from 6.5 percent share of total federal personal income tax paid in 1986 to 3.1 percent share of tax paid in 2007.
In the Great Recession of 2007-09 the share of federal income tax paid by the lower half has continued to decline. Income of the lower half declined to 7.40 percent of GDP in 2009 and federal income tax share declined to 2.25 percent of total collections.
See also here for more information on federal income tax rates and federal income tax shares.
Income Tax and the Top One Percent
Since the mid-1980s the top one percent of income tax filers has paid an increasing share of federal income tax, except during recessions.
Chart 3.32: The Top One Percent’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The top one percent of income tax filers has seen its income increase from 11.3 percent to 22.8 percent of income reported to the IRS in the period from 1986 to 2007. But the share of federal income tax paid has increased from 25.8 percent of all individual income taxes in 1986 to a 40.1 percent share of the total in 2007.
When recessions hit, the rich earn less income and pay a smaller share of taxes. The income of the richest 1 percent dipped from 20.8 percent of reported income in 2000 to 17.5 percent in 2001, while their federal income tax payments dipped from 37.4 percent in 2000 to 33.4 percent in the recession year of 2002. In the Great Recession of 2007-09, the top one percent share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 17.1 percent of reported income. Their income tax share fell from 40.1 percent to 36.5 percent. See SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, SOI Bulletin article–Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares Table 5 for 1986-2009 and Table 3 for 2001-2011.
The Poor Pay Less
In good times and bad, the poor report less income and pay less federal income tax.
Chart 3.33: The Bottom Half’s Share
of Federal Income Tax
The lower half of income tax filers have reported a smaller and smaller share of income over the period 1986 to 2007. In 1986 they reported 16.7 percent of income reported to the IRS on their federal income tax forms; by 2007 this had shrunk to 12.2 percent. Income tax share declined by over 50 percent, from 6.5 percent share of total federal personal income tax paid in 1986 to 3.1 percent share of tax paid in 2007.
In the Great Recession of 2007-09 the share of federal income tax paid by the lower half has continued to decline. Income of the lower half declined to 7.40 percent of GDP in 2009 and federal income tax share declined to 2.25 percent of total collections.
See also here for more information on federal income tax rates and federal income tax shares.
So...is your point here that the "poor" - defined as those in the lower half of income tax filers - are getting less and less of the total income over time and thus paying a lower and lower share of total taxes?
I know you know what happened in both - 1994 the newly won Republican Congress forced a balanced budget and welfare reform on Clinton, and 9-11 happened to Bush (even prior to Iraq war in 2003 sht happened)
The economy under GWB from 03-07 was humming along. Then the subprime mortgage chicken came home to roost.
Something that democrats don't seem to understand though about the modern world is that people no longer need to live here or live near where they work. If you start raising taxes at any level, you encourage people to leave. If you raise taxes on the rich, look for them to move out of this country. I could move anywhere and actually keep my job for the UIHC.
True, but we do know what did happen.
While I tend to be critical of Clinton on some things, my guess is that the worst that would have happened if 9/11 occurred on Clinton's watch would have been much better than what happened on Bush's watch.
Why? Because Clinton was less disposed to convert what most viewed as a justified counterattack against AQ and Afghanistan into an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. I don't think you get that without folks like Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocons calling the shots and setting up shadow misinformation organizations to counter our professional intelligence services, and so on.
Nor, I think, do you get the ruinous tax cuts for the rich from Clinton. And even though Clinton deserves some of the blame for deregulation, it's unlikely he would have gone whole hog on deregulation or backed science denialism or many of the other disastrous elements of the Bush era.
'"Bush's tax cuts for the rich" has been a rallying cry for quite some time. Technically, yes, they did see their taxes cut. But one is being a bit dishonest when they don't also point out that taxes dropped even more for the poor and middle class.
