The next big cuts in Washtington

[tvashtarkatena]

You clearly have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

I was commenting on the WSJ article Jay_B linked to.

 

"President Obama's response to congressional efforts to curb runaway federal spending is to emphasize, once again, his resolve to greatly increase tax rates on married couples whose joint incomes are above $250,000. This insistent desire to raise taxes—which he repeated in a speech yesterday while complaining about "trillions of dollars in . . . tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country"—is a distraction. It won't solve our nation's fiscal problem."

 

I have no idea what Jay_B's position is on taxing the rich, so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that we both support taxing the rich. Probably the same way you yourself came to the conclusion that taxing the rich is a good idea - confused [feel-good] "logic".

 

Obviously, if taxing the rich isn't enough, we need to do even more. Agreed. Massively cutting the military comes to mind. Hope you can keep your job if that happens.

 

Of course, there is not reason whatsoever to leave the low-hanging-fruit of tax revenues from the hyperwealthy on the table.

 

That would be kind of stupid.

 

But, yes, we need to do much more. No one here, other than you and perhaps JayB (hard to figure out any of his, um, 'points') has claimed that taxing the rich would solve the problem completely.

 

Unless you thought that's what we've been saying.

 

Which would also be kind of stupid.

 

Edited April 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't see what's so bad about increasing the handicap for people that are really good at making money. It evens things out. Taxes should feel the same to everyone. Right now, taxes on the obscenely rich do no feel the same as they do to me. They don't matter to them. They should matter. We should all have the same burden.

 

I'm sure now you'll just call me a bunch of bad names, and clearly you can't understand my position and so you'll have to resort to personal attacks or whatever, and I'm OK with that.

 

I don't see why people are having such a hard time with the concept of returning tax rates on the extreme wealthy back to what they used to be. We're not talking about "gutting" them or whatever. They are all doing quite well. They are not under attack.

 

It's strange, though, that the people protecting their tax cuts seem to be people who would not benefit from their tax cuts. I don't actually hear the extreme wealthy agitating for tax breaks. It's the have-nots that are working so hard to keep the rich from shouldering a proportional burden.

 

Weird.

 

How much of the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit (see pie chart above) will be eliminated by raising the top marginal rate from 35% to 39%?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The NYT has a great interactive tool where you can balance the budget yourself using all the proposals that have been put on the political table. I balanced the budget in about 10 minutes. Google it.

[Sam Furley]

WorldNetDaily has a similar tool. Check it out.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The NYT has a great interactive tool where you can balance the budget yourself using all the proposals that have been put on the political table. I balanced the budget in about 10 minutes. Google it.

 

54 billion - from 35 to 37%?

 

only 1.59 trillion to go!

[tvashtarkatena]

With any of these policy proposals, you want to avoid a) firing people and b) driving at-risk people below the poverty line. Even if you're a sociopath who doesn't give a shit about these folks, they only strain social and law enforcement services more as a result - which makes the budget problem even worse.

 

Taxing the wealthiest, of course, minimizes these problems. It represents a minor hit to people and businesses that can easily afford it.

[JayB]

I don't see what's so bad about increasing the handicap for people that are really good at making money. It evens things out. Taxes should feel the same to everyone. Right now, taxes on the obscenely rich do no feel the same as they do to me. They don't matter to them. They should matter. We should all have the same burden.

 

I'm sure now you'll just call me a bunch of bad names, and clearly you can't understand my position and so you'll have to resort to personal attacks or whatever, and I'm OK with that.

 

I don't see why people are having such a hard time with the concept of returning tax rates on the extreme wealthy back to what they used to be. We're not talking about "gutting" them or whatever. They are all doing quite well. They are not under attack.

 

It's strange, though, that the people protecting their tax cuts seem to be people who would not benefit from their tax cuts. I don't actually hear the extreme wealthy agitating for tax breaks. It's the have-nots that are working so hard to keep the rich from shouldering a proportional burden.

 

Weird.

 

The point of the article is that increasing the top marginal rates isn't a very effective way of increasing the amount of taxes that the wealthiest 10% of Americans *actually* pay. Top marginal rates at 90% or more were great political theater, but the data shows that they weren't very good at increasing revenue or the effective tax rate.

 

If you want to increase the effective tax rate over the long term (e.g. the percentage of their total income that they actually pay in taxes every year), the most effective way to do that is lower marginal rates and eliminate deductions, loopholes, etc.

 

It's been done before. Take a look at the tax reforms of 1986.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Or increase marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminate loopholes.

 

Uh-huh.

[ivan]

Or increase marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminate loopholes.

 

Uh-huh.

 

i'll have the lasagna.

[JayB]

Or increase marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminate loopholes.

 

Uh-huh.

 

 

Can you point to the spike in revenues under policy conditions that best approximate that set of policies?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Or increase marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminate loopholes.

 

Uh-huh.

 

 

Can you point to the spike in revenues under policy conditions that best approximate that set of policies?

 

There is a flaw in that plot.

 

The top marginal rate has not always been set for the same salary - even normalizing for inflation. For example the 90% of the past may have applied to someone making $1,000,000 in today's dollars, but the 35% rate applies to those making, say, more than $250,000.

 

 

[ivan]

economics - if you can't dazzle them w/ brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

 

how is this rocket science? your choice is dump grandma in the gutter or stickup the asshole w/ the fancy hat and monocle - do you really need a fucking graph to figure that one out?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

economics - if you can't dazzle them w/ brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

 

how is this rocket science? your choice is dump grandma in the gutter or stickup the asshole w/ the fancy hat and monocle - do you really need a fucking graph to figure that one out?

 

as if the choices are that "simple".

[ivan]

economics - if you can't dazzle them w/ brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!

 

how is this rocket science? your choice is dump grandma in the gutter or stickup the asshole w/ the fancy hat and monocle - do you really need a fucking graph to figure that one out?

 

as if the choices are that "simple".

of course they're not, but in the end the relentless discussion of detail does miss the simple point: what, in your gut, is just?

 

off for a good long run in the rain - get this thing fixed and get back to me, eh?

[tvashtarkatena]

Throwing up one's hands and claiming 'it's too complex' is a great strategy for 'trusting the experts'.

 

The 'experts', in this case legislators, are no smarter or more experienced (and the newbies often less) than anyone else. It isn't

'that simple'...it also isn't 'that hard' either.

 

Work from your basic principles: social justice, for example, and the path usually flows pretty readily from there.

 

As the NYT budget tool shows, it really isn't all that hard, although it is, of course, very political.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Throwing up one's hands and claiming 'it's too complex' is a great strategy for 'trusting the experts'.

 

Picking a simple course of action (tax the rich more) because it "feels like the right thing" is just as bad as "throwing up one's hands" (which nobody said to do, actually, but, hey manufacture the position of others who disagree with you anyways - a tactic you are fond of)

 

Gov't can always grow and spend more than they currently are. There is a limit as to how much you can tax the rich, and any proposal's benefit actually needs to be evaluated for efficacy (i.e. impact on the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit).

 

But hey, pontificate some more, throw out the term "sociopath" a few hundred times more and talk about how smart you are and dumb everyone else is.

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

There is a flaw in that plot.

 

The top marginal rate has not always been set for the same salary - even normalizing for inflation. For example the 90% of the past may have applied to someone making $1,000,000 in today's dollars, but the 35% rate applies to those making, say, more than $250,000.

 

damnit, you aren't supposed to expose Jay's lies, that's the LibDopes job

[JayB]

Or increase marginal rates on the wealthy and eliminate loopholes.

 

Uh-huh.

 

 

Can you point to the spike in revenues under policy conditions that best approximate that set of policies?

 

There is a flaw in that plot.

 

The top marginal rate has not always been set for the same salary - even normalizing for inflation. For example the 90% of the past may have applied to someone making $1,000,000 in today's dollars, but the 35% rate applies to those making, say, more than $250,000.

 

 

That's true - but the plot showing federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP includes revenues from all sources, so all you can tell from the plot is that there's never been a time when taxing whoever happens to be defined as rich enough to pay at the top marginal rate generated a significant increase in Uncle Sam's revenue as a share of GDP. As you indicated - no magic bullet.

 

As far as I know the Euro states generate less revenue as a share of GDP from income taxes, even though their marginal rates are higher, and manage to capture a higher percentage of GDP in tax revenues than we do through the use of broad consumption taxes that hit everyone, like the VAT, etc...e.g. "regressive" taxation mechanisms.

 

Historical top marginal rates and income thresholds here for those that are curious:

 

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

so all you can tell from the plot is that there's never been a time when taxing whoever happens to be defined as rich enough to pay at the top marginal rate generated a significant increase in Uncle Sam's revenue as a share of GDP. As you indicated - no magic bullet.

 

That's because you didn't include WW2 in your data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

marginal rates (your site)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

tax revenue as 20.9% of GDP in 1944, up from 13.3% of GDP in 1943. Marginal rate went from 88% to 94%. You'll also notice how far the top bracket fell in that time period as well. Similar occured earlier in the century when the top bracket went from 7% to 77% in 3 years

 

I realize though that "facts" are uncomfortably at odds with your ideology.

[ivan]

Throwing up one's hands and claiming 'it's too complex' is a great strategy for 'trusting the experts'.

 

The 'experts', in this case legislators, are no smarter or more experienced (and the newbies often less) than anyone else. It isn't

'that simple'...it also isn't 'that hard' either.

 

Work from your basic principles: social justice, for example, and the path usually flows pretty readily from there.

 

As the NYT budget tool shows, it really isn't all that hard, although it is, of course, very political.

i neither throw my hands up nor pick the simplest course of action in a moment - i don't mind and frequently do discuss details ad nasuem, and just point out eventually its time to stfu and DO somethign other than bitch back and forth - my sense of "tax the rich" is a broad one, and really, not divorcing myself from the group to pitch in - fuck, as a public employee, for years now i've acquiesced w/o excessive complaint to no small amount of sacrifice for the Greater Good - end exemptions, increase marginal rates, thresholds, whatever, just bring more cash in and jesus-fuck, quit spending inordinately on dipshit stuff like the maintainence of a global empire

[JayB]

so all you can tell from the plot is that there's never been a time when taxing whoever happens to be defined as rich enough to pay at the top marginal rate generated a significant increase in Uncle Sam's revenue as a share of GDP. As you indicated - no magic bullet.

 

That's because you didn't include WW2 in your data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

marginal rates (your site)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

tax revenue as 20.9% of GDP in 1944, up from 13.3% of GDP in 1943. Marginal rate went from 88% to 94%. You'll also notice how far the top bracket fell in that time period as well. Similar occured earlier in the century when the top bracket went from 7% to 77% in 3 years

 

I realize though that "facts" are uncomfortably at odds with your ideology.

 

 

 

If the relationship between top marginal rates and revenues is a simple function of marginal rates and income thresholds then every cut in top marginal rates should result in a proportionate reduction in tax revenues, and should never lead to an increase - right?

 

There's a reason that the Euro's like broad consumption taxes in addition to high marginal rates, because they figured out that there's not enough aggregated income in whatever income threshold they deem wealthy to cover the bills.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Throwing up one's hands and claiming 'it's too complex' is a great strategy for 'trusting the experts'.

 

The 'experts', in this case legislators, are no smarter or more experienced (and the newbies often less) than anyone else. It isn't

'that simple'...it also isn't 'that hard' either.

 

Work from your basic principles: social justice, for example, and the path usually flows pretty readily from there.

 

As the NYT budget tool shows, it really isn't all that hard, although it is, of course, very political.

i neither throw my hands up nor pick the simplest course of action in a moment - i don't mind and frequently do discuss details ad nasuem, and just point out eventually its time to stfu and DO somethign other than bitch back and forth - my sense of "tax the rich" is a broad one, and really, not divorcing myself from the group to pitch in - fuck, as a public employee, for years now i've acquiesced w/o excessive complaint to no small amount of sacrifice for the Greater Good - end exemptions, increase marginal rates, thresholds, whatever, just bring more cash in and jesus-fuck, quit spending inordinately on dipshit stuff like the maintainence of a global empire

 

Does anyone know the history of cap gains taxes? I am too lazy to look myself. :-) And why are there only 2(?) brackets? Seems the structure of cap gains taxes (progressive) could/should be closer to that of income, no?

[Hugh Conway]

so all you can tell from the plot is that there's never been a time when taxing whoever happens to be defined as rich enough to pay at the top marginal rate generated a significant increase in Uncle Sam's revenue as a share of GDP. As you indicated - no magic bullet.

 

That's because you didn't include WW2 in your data:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

marginal rates (your site)

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

tax revenue as 20.9% of GDP in 1944, up from 13.3% of GDP in 1943. Marginal rate went from 88% to 94%. You'll also notice how far the top bracket fell in that time period as well. Similar occured earlier in the century when the top bracket went from 7% to 77% in 3 years

 

I realize though that "facts" are uncomfortably at odds with your ideology.

 

 

 

If the relationship between top marginal rates and revenues is a simple function of marginal rates and income thresholds then every cut in top marginal rates should result in a proportionate reduction in tax revenues, and should never lead to an increase - right?

 

There's a reason that the Euro's like broad consumption taxes in addition to high marginal rates, because they figured out that there's not enough aggregated income in whatever income threshold they deem wealthy to cover the bills.

 

 

 

You don't like admitting you were wrong?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You don't like admitting you were wrong?

 

Does anybody?

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

You don't like admitting you were wrong?

 

Does anybody?

 

true, Jay's weaving has just gotten particularly irksome lately.

 

like your "double taxation bollocks" now that you think it should be treated like income