The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

This is from the P-S paper:

 

 

from a different P-S paper:

 

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The reason rich people should want to pay more taxes is that if this country falls apart, they are going to be the ones who lose the most.

 

You pay your taxes so you get to keep your earned position in society. Its much better to pay an extra 1% than to have a revolution.

 

Its not about fair, its about being smart. At the end of the day, all those pretty 0s in their bank account are worthless if there is no country to enforce the obligations. Its silly, but whatever. I guess the medium rich know the ultra rich will always pay, because they understand that when youre making $100mil, paying an extra $1mil is priceless compared to losing everything.

 

 

 

Or what will happen is exactly what's happening in Spain, where the rich are leaving the country as fast as possible, negating pretty much every effort of Spain to rebound since they depend so heavily on those same rich people to operate.

[StrangeSox]

Individual percentage rates are also extremely higher for upper income brackets, which is the very definition of progressive. Higher brackets pay higher individual rates, even when excluding things like EITC which would turn most of the lower brackets into negative tax rates.

 

If by "extremely high" you mean "unusually and historically low," sure.

 

Have you read or even skimmed the P-S paper, or is that more lib propaganda?

[Soxbadger]

Or what will happen is exactly what's happening in Spain, where the rich are leaving the country as fast as possible, negating pretty much every effort of Spain to rebound since they depend so heavily on those same rich people to operate.

 

Go ahead and leave. More opportunity for the rest of us. If you can find a better country that is cheaper than the US, go for it. But there is a reason why you are paying less taxes in those countries, and why the ultra-rich just dont run to them.

 

Im not afraid of their threats, they arent going anywhere. This is the best country, thats why you pay to stay here. There are thousands of millionaires who would love to come to the US right now.

[StrangeSox]

Or what will happen is exactly what's happening in Spain, where the rich are leaving the country as fast as possible, negating pretty much every effort of Spain to rebound since they depend so heavily on those same rich people to operate.

 

The problem you have highlighted is the easy mobility of capital and wealth in the modern age and the willingness of the select few who control an overwhelming majority of it to hold entire countries or even continents hostage to their demands that they be able to accumulate ever larger shares of wealth. The rich are so heavily relied upon to pay for everything because they have hoarded most of the wealth.

 

Unrest is bad for business and bad for the wealthy. "Let them eat cake" does, eventually, come back to bite you.

[southsider2k5]

If by "extremely high" you mean "unusually and historically low," sure.

 

Have you read or even skimmed the P-S paper, or is that more lib propaganda?

 

The charts you keep posting agree with what I am saying. They go higher as you go up the income brackets.

[CrimsonWeltall]

This is from the P-S paper:

 

1960, when the US was a Communist country that punished rich people for being successful!

[StrangeSox]

The charts you keep posting agree with what I am saying. They go higher as you go up the income brackets.

 

Nobody in this thread has said that our total tax system isn't at least somewhat progressive. I said that it's not very progressive, because it isn't. Once you get past some logarithmic growth at the very low end, it's relatively flat. Especially compared to the 1960 rates directly next to it! None of your nonsense flailing about total tax share has anything to do with that. You've been attempting to portray the US system as highly or even "extremely" progressive by using proxy measurements that aren't solely a function of tax rate and ignoring everything else.

 

Those charts show that our tax system is marginally progressive at the federal level (and that doesn't yet account for state and local taxes, which are typically regressive!) but also that median income has been damn near flat for decades while the top 5% income has skyrocketed. That chart, coupled with the knowledge that income gaps aren't as severe in the other countries referenced in your original response, completely explain why the top brackets account for a large share of the tax burden even with a barely progressive tax system.

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Seriously, how on earth can you see this chart:

 

 

and say it supports this:

Individual percentage rates are also extremely higher for upper income brackets, which is the very definition of progressive.

 

If the chart on the left is "extremely high" for upper income brackets, what the hell were the 1960's?

[southsider2k5]

Nobody in this thread has said that our total tax system isn't at least somewhat progressive. I said that it's not very progressive, because it isn't. Once you get past some logarithmic growth at the very low end, it's relatively flat. Especially compared to the 1960 rates directly next to it! None of your nonsense flailing about total tax share has anything to do with that. You've been attempting to portray the US system as highly or even "extremely" progressive by using proxy measurements that aren't solely a function of tax rate and ignoring everything else.

 

Those charts show that our tax system is marginally progressive at the federal level (and that doesn't yet account for state and local taxes, which are typically regressive!) but also that median income has been damn near flat for decades while the top 5% income has skyrocketed. That chart, coupled with the knowledge that income gaps aren't as severe in the other countries referenced in your original response, completely explain why the top brackets account for a large share of the tax burden even with a barely progressive tax system.

 

Even with the selectiveness of the taxes selected in your article, there is still about a 400% tax rate difference between the lower and upper tax brackets. But apparently that qualifies as "barely progressive". Talk about ignoring everything else.

 

[Soxbadger]

Semantic arguments are boring. US income tax is progressive, its a fact. Why not argue about whether it should be more progressive, instead of trying to spin in circles over whether its technically progressive.

 

Because who really cares if its progressive. We are supposedly capitalists and Adam Smith proposed a progressive tax in wealth of nations. Its not rocket science, its merely a question of what rates are the best.

[southsider2k5]

Seriously, how on earth can you see this chart:

 

 

and say it supports this:

 

 

If the chart on the left is "extremely high" for upper income brackets, what the hell were the 1960's?

 

It would be nice if you could quote accurately. The statement was on the differences in rate rates between the different brackets. You know the actual definition of a progressive tax code?

 

Now, ~8% on the low end to 32% on the high end

Then ~16% on the low end to ~ 70% on the high end

 

So the ratio of tax rates has gone from about 4.5 times higher on the top brackets to 4 times higher, and this is the big tragedy? The progression of the tax code hasn't moved nearly as much as the extremists want to make it out to be, and you just proved it with a left wing paper. Congrats. Even though the reality is that a 100% tax rate on the richest American's wouldn't cover the deficit, this apparently is what is wrong with this country.

[Jenksismyhero]

Go ahead and leave. More opportunity for the rest of us. If you can find a better country that is cheaper than the US, go for it. But there is a reason why you are paying less taxes in those countries, and why the ultra-rich just dont run to them.

 

Im not afraid of their threats, they arent going anywhere. This is the best country, thats why you pay to stay here. There are thousands of millionaires who would love to come to the US right now.

 

More opportunity for the rest of us? We don't have the money to just pick up where they left off (they have it all apparently), especially when the growing tax burden gets shifted further down the ladder.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

It would be nice if you could quote accurately. The statement was on the differences in rate rates between the different brackets. You know the actual definition of a progressive tax code?

 

Now, ~8% on the low end to 32% on the high end

Then ~16% on the low end to ~ 70% on the high end

 

So the ratio of tax rates has gone from about 4.5 times higher on the top brackets to 4 times higher, and this is the big tragedy? The progression of the tax code hasn't moved nearly as much as the extremists want to make it out to be, and you just proved it with a left wing paper. Congrats. Even though the reality is that a 100% tax rate on the richest American's wouldn't cover the deficit, this apparently is what is wrong with this country.

 

I say tax the rich at 100% and add more to the government payroll. BOOM. Socialist dream come true and we'll all be dancing around maypoles.

[StrangeSox]

Even with the selectiveness of the taxes selected in your article, there is still about a 400% tax rate difference between the lower and upper tax brackets. But apparently that qualifies as "barely progressive". Talk about ignoring everything else.

 

It is hilarious that you would say this after linking the article you linked and then saying that really, really silly "47% pay not taxes!" thing that you know is an intentional distortion, especially as it relates to the article I posted.

 

Yes, our federal tax system is barely progressive. It's barely progressive compared to many other countries, and it's barely progressive compared to historical rates in this country. When you take into account state and local taxes, it's damn near flat across the board. All of your flailing on about tax shares says nothing about that.

 

Sure, the P99.9-P100 rate is 800% higher than the P20-40 rate (P0-20 is negative thanks to EITC), but their income is 113900% higher. See what fun you can have when you're using comparative percentages like that? That 800% difference in rate compared to the 113,900% difference in income doesn't seem so large, now does it?

[StrangeSox]

More opportunity for the rest of us? We don't have the money to just pick up where they left off (they have it all apparently), especially when the growing tax burden gets shifted further down the ladder.

 

Yes, exactly, an increasingly smaller number of people control access the access to capital necessary to make the global economy work and for billions to subsist. This is not a good thing, but David Siedel is crying that he can't control even more.

[Soxbadger]

More opportunity for the rest of us? We don't have they money to just pick up where they left off, especially when the growing tax burden gets shifted further down the ladder.

 

Yep because outside of estate taxes (which most smart rich people dont pay anyways), capital gains and a few others, taxes are not paid on money sitting in a bank (The interest would be taxable as income, I meant money just sitting doing nothing). So Bill Gates already paid his income tax on the money he earned in the US. And so when he leaves (I know hes retired im just using him as an example) there will have to be a new CEO of Microsoft, who will then pay income tax, just like Bill Gates did before he left.

 

High end earners almost always have jobs that are going be immediately replaced. Fortune 500 companies dont lose their CEOs to have no CEO replace them. Now if you started to see entire companies stop doing business in the US, then you have a problem. But fortunately I believe the US is still the biggest buyer on the block, which means every company wants a piece of our sweet sweet ass.

 

Everyone is replaceable rich people, poor people, especially when you have a line at the door. The day we have more emigration than immigration, is the day I start to worry.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

left wing paper.

 

also left-wing? Richard Posner and his ruling on the 2003 Iraq war protestors

Kroll, Inc. and it's report on the UC-Davis pepper spray incident

Edited October 10, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

It would be nice if you could quote accurately. The statement was on the differences in rate rates between the different brackets. You know the actual definition of a progressive tax code?

 

Now, ~8% on the low end to 32% on the high end

Then ~16% on the low end to ~ 70% on the high end

 

So the ratio of tax rates has gone from about 4.5 times higher on the top brackets to 4 times higher, and this is the big tragedy? The progression of the tax code hasn't moved nearly as much as the extremists want to make it out to be, and you just proved it with a left wing paper. Congrats. Even though the reality is that a 100% tax rate on the richest American's wouldn't cover the deficit, this apparently is what is wrong with this country.

In 1960, the federal tax system imposed higher average tax rates on those with low incomes, then lower rates on a middle group up to the 95th percentile, and much higher rates within the top 5 percent of the

income distribution, especially in very top groups. The lower tax burden in 1960 for the middle groups is largely due to the fact that the payroll tax, which falls primarily on the groups from P20 to P95, was much smaller in 1960 than today. The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percent. This finding illustrates the theme that it is important to decompose the top of the income distribution into very small groups to capture the progressivity of a tax system. Although very top groups contain few taxpayers, they account for a substantial share of income earned, and an even larger share of taxes paid.

 

Interestingly, the larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.

 

The greater progressivity of federal taxes in 1960, in contrast to 2004, stems from the corporate income tax and the estate tax. The corporate tax collected about 6.5 percent of total personal income in 1960 and only around 2.5 percent of total income today. Because capital income is very concentrated, it generated a substantial burden on top income groups. The estate tax has also decreased from 0.8 percent of total personal income in 1960 to about 0.35 percent of total income today. As a result, the burden of the estate tax relative to income has declined very sharply since 1960 in the top income groups.

[StrangeSox]

[StrangeSox]

I forgot to highlight this gem from the letter earlier:

 

Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, “democracy” will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

 

"Jefferson family, with slaves"

 

The Smithsonian has an excellent piece entitled "The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson"

[StrangeSox]

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Americans are racist!

[mr_genius]

Americans are racist!

 

and StrangeSox has provided irrefutable proof.

[StrangeSox]

Americans are racist!

Some of them really are!