231–240 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the point. The OP said "In the olden days, the main force balancing this was taxation.". My comment was taxation is higher now than it's ever been.
Counterpoint: it's not. I can substantiate my counterpoint after you substantiate yours.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Let's see your data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: it's not. I can substantiate my counterpoint after you substantiate yours.
It was a fraction of what it is today before WW2. I don't see any trend downward over time. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S Let's see your data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- There is plenty of free capital in the economy. More than ever really. To the point that the "capital glut" is a regular topic of discussion in economic news. - I don't know how old you are but both Clinton and Obama significantly increased taxes on the rich. Federal tax receipts as a % of GDP are fairly constant going back to WW2. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
First that graph shows a huge range of rates. Just 2000 vs 2004 is a 22% drop, but even that's just federal rates. Total government spending is the only meaningful metric when state, local, and federal funds are all taken out of your paycheck. Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The rate from 1982 was higher than either Clinton or Obama rates. And 1982 was below the rate from 1…
The tax burden has basically gone opposite of what you imply. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes) The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are allowed, the other lower tax rates, etc.
>...Compare US GDP growth and a high top marginal rate seems to promote growth,
Those high marginal rates of the 1950's did not bring in some giant windfall to the government or somehow promote growth of GDP. Most economists are opposed to very high marginal tax rates due to the inefficiencies they introduce - compensation being moved to non-salary, money wasted on CPAs, lawyers and lobbying congress for special deductions, dead weight losses for economic activity that isn't done, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually a very good point. Globalization has been great for developing countries and terrible for developed countries. People from developing countries have a much better life outlook as a result. As a westerner, I am much worse off than my parents were and so my perception of life is very cynical. The lifestyle that I had in my childhood and the idea of life which my parents projected onto me was so much bet…
I am much worse off than my parents OK, let's assume you're 30 and your parents were ~30 when they had you. That means your parents spent their 15-30's during the 1970's. What were the 1970's like in the US (yes, I'm assuming you're American)? Absolute crap. Post-Vietnam with everyone wondering whether or not the US was done as a superpower. A humiliating withdrawal from a war that killed 50,000 Americans. Stagflatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You will find no practical solution to this problem other than starving the beast (decentralizing power away from government) All this will lead to is dictatorship by the wealthy. I much prefer our current system, as flawed as it is, to corporate fascism.
Disagree. It is our current system, which increasingly empowers opportunists over capitalists, that will create "corporate fascism." Current system: 1) Big companies pay minimal or negative taxes. Small companies are taxed at the individual rate (and increasing). If Company A pays 0% at top bracket, and Company B pays 50%, Company B is unlikely to out-compete Company A. Read: our tax system creates "monopolies." 2) O…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be. there are however many new avenues to follow to increase wealth. those below a certain income level are more likely to get eaten up by embedded taxes, regulatory fees and government service fees. then throw in we are bombarded every day continuously to buy this,buy that, go here, do that. We get told every day of wonderful stuff available for pennies or d…
"taxes in the US are far more progressive than they used to be." How do you figure? Between 1936 and 1989, the tax rate for the top income bracket varied between 63% and 91%. https://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First that graph shows a huge range of rates. Just 2000 vs 2004 is a 22% drop, but even that's just federal rates. Total government spending is the only meaningful metric when state, local, and federal funds are all taken out of your paycheck. Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The rate from 1982 was higher than either Clinton or Obama rates. And 1982 was below the rate from 1…
>...Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The tax burden has basically gone opposite of what you imply. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. ( http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes ) The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are…
Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes.
PS: Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.)
I think the great problem of our time is that the challenges get easier to solve every day but we mostly spend our time making rent. And not the kind of rent mentioned in the article - just plain old fashioned too-much-month-not-enough-money kind of rent. When we’re desperate, we grovel and do whatever work we need to to survive. This is akin to how researchers spend inordinate amounts of time applying for grants rat…
- There is plenty of free capital in the economy. More than ever really. To the point that the "capital glut" is a regular topic of discussion in economic news. - I don't know how old you are but both Clinton and Obama significantly increased taxes on the rich. Federal tax receipts as a % of GDP are fairly constant going back to WW2. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
As long as you don't have high capital gains tax or at least at the same level as income tax the wealth will keep flowing to the very rich. As richer you are the lesser tax you pay percentage wise on your wealth gain every year.Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The tax burden has basically gone opposite of what you imply. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. ( http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes ) The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are…
Top 10% made 20% of all income in 1980, they now make 50% of all income. So, going up to 70% is actually a drop in their tax rates. Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. PS: Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class…
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations... http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistribution...
>...Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes.
As I have tried to explain in the previous comment, the top marginal rate means very little.
>...Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit.
In reality, they were a bad idea. It should be a hint that you don't see mainstream economists suggesting we return to them. Politicians find them a good talking point since everyone likes the idea of someone else paying more taxes, but you don't see economists suggesting it.
>...Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.)
How exactly does a confiscatory rate reduce the rent seeking behavior of capital - that seems like a different issue. In reality, high rates encourage money to be spent in non-productive ways to influence congress to carve out special tax deductions/credits. Enough loopholes were in the old tax code that some politically well connected wealthy people sometimes paid no taxes - this is why the AMT was created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Top 10% made 20% of all income in 1980, they now make 50% of all income. So, going up to 70% is actually a drop in their tax rates. Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. PS: Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class…
What is the source of your data? According to the world bank and the OECD, from 1986 to now the income share held by the top 10% has been in a range from 27 - 31%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations... http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistribution... >...Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. As I have tried to explain in the previ…
So, yes you can get rather different looking charts from what I said. But, honestly I don't feel like getting into a debate about this stuff.