Hyperbole! It’s going to kill us all!! Part 1: Marginal Tax Rates & Soaking the Rich

a reply to: neo96

I agree. Cap federal spending, and make all taxes sales taxes.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Absolutely let's apply some critical thinking to the chart.

First of all it covers 1960 to 2010.

What was the US population growth over that time?

ScepticScot-

Is this how you usually debate a topic? I spend hours researching a topic, write a coherent thread that includes factual data and links to sources from all ends of the political spectrum, and you come in and tell me to do more research? Why don’t you go do some research on the argument you are trying to make?

Anyway- let me make this point in a different way for you. I say that someone is is throwing darts at me and it hurts. I then say that they are throwing less darts at me, especially my head, and therefor the pain is less.

You say, “Well they are still throwing darts at you, so I don’t see a corellary between less darts and less pain. Besides, they are only throwing less darts at your head, far as I can see.”

I then reply,”First, you bloody Sceptic, there are less darts, regardless of where they throw them. Second, they stopped aiming for my head, and those are the ones that hurt the worst!”

Is this clearer for you now? Or do I need to research darts from 1943 to see whether or not they were sharp enough to stick into my face?

-TMfM

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: neo96

I didn’t go into the other tax schemes, merely the “marginal tax rates” as a point of argument. I think our whole tax code sucks in general, and should be completely rewritten as a flat tax, or sales tax.

Decrying the inequities of of marginal tax rates in the US overlooks a glaring fault in logic:

The very same tax laws establishing and more importantly, defining, the marginal rates that supposedly “penalize” the wealthy unfairly, were, by and large, written and enacted into law BY the wealthy to preserve and enhance their wealth.

Yes, it easy to make a chart showing how, at the upper end of a marginal tax rate structure, the burden of taxation is truly onerous.

However, what such a chart fails to show, and by such omission, seriously invalidates its argument, is that due to the many and sometimes obscure allowances, write-offs, favorable treatments, deductions, and out-right credits, ALSO codified into the tax laws, the actual taxes PAID at the upper end of the marginal rate, amount to a significantly lower tax rate on the amount of income reported.

Also, due to various provisions within the tax code, not all the income “earned” in a particular tax year may be required to be reported in that tax year: the result being a lower tax rate on an “artificially” reduced amount of taxable income.

The wealthy are not being harmed by apparent high marginal tax rates;

They have quite cleverly devised and enacted those rates to protect themselves with the appearance of oppression, while effectively inoculating themselves from the effects of those rates by “priest-holes” in the tax code.

Priest-holes you and I are never likely to be able to utilize.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

One, I can understand your argument and logic when it comes to loopholes- it’s not “fair”, but why are progressive democrat socialists pushing for them if they know that these same wealthy plutocrats are going to avoid those taxes anyway?

Second, if you read my post, you can see that the taxes for the average Americans are raised by 60%- these are the people I am sad for. Either way, this tax scheme unfairly burdens almost anyone who makes more than $60,000 a year, all in the name of “equality”.

-TMfM

At the moment literally 80% of our budget problems are related to medical care costs. If we would fix that we would not need new taxes.

They are by far the fastest expanding part of the budget due to costs increasing and they are already way out of hand, medical care costs nearly double in the US what it does in every other industrialized nation. It is ridiculous that the medical industry is nearly 25% of the US economy.

In my opinion the easiest and best way to fix this problem is to allow true free market competition which is not happening at all currently.

The idea that we should continue to throw tax dollars to the overpaid medical care economy is stupid - it's like willingly choosing to get ripped off for Trillions for no good reason.

People need to understand this - and the politicians and media are doing everything they can to hide this problem - because they get a ton of kickbacks in the form of ad dollars and campaign contributions and lobbiest perks to keep it quiet.

a reply to: ThouArtGod

You made the claim that it is fact that lower taxes increases tax revenue.

I simply pointed out that was neither fact or supported by the link you provided.

Showing an inverse correlation between top level of marginal tax and total tax revenue raised does not support that lowering taxes increase revenue. Ignoring population growth is just one of many reasons why, a point I (perhaps wrongly) thought was obvious.

I am sorry you seem to feel so sensitive about that but genuinely if your are expecting people to uncritically accept your threads then perhaps this isn't the site for you.

I have genuinely no idea whay point you are trying to make about the darts.

a reply to: proximo

While I agree with you, this is a whole other thread, one that I am gathering data and information for. The costs off our healthcare are also largely associated with subsidizing the worlds health care advancements. Anyone who argues we are not the catalyst and inventor of the majority of all medical field and pharmacological advances are either lying or cherry picking statistics. At least that’s what my research has turned up so far.

-TMfM

a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol- the facts do not lie. It literally points out that lowering taxes raises receipts. I am not sure what you are getting at, other than an obvious desire to avoid facts in order to cloud the water. For example, I don’t think population fluctuation has occurred at levels that ALSO match tax increases or decreases, thus influencing treasury receipts. But I’m waiting for you to post some facts on the matter that might suggest you have done some research that supports your hypothesis.

Also, I can deal with arguments, thankyouverymuch, but I appreciate the implication that I don’t know what parts of the internet are good for me to visit. And I’m sorry you didn’t understand the analogy- me thinks it rather obvious.

-TMfM

Edit to add- I am not an economist. I am not here to argue the merits of supply side economics, as the nuances of government spending, trade deals, blah blah blah were not the point of the OP. Yes, there are data points to back up my point that lower taxes equate to higher revenues, but there is more to it than that. This thread, however, was about marginal tax rates, without getting into the complexities of tax law.
Sorry if I came off a runt, as I am working on a paper for my graduates degree, and my daughter keeps having meltdowns.

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol- the facts do not lie. It literally points out that lowering taxes raises receipts. I am not sure what you are getting at, other than an obvious desire to avoid facts in order to cloud the water. For example, I don’t think population fluctuation has occurred at levels that ALSO match tax increases or decreases, thus influencing treasury receipts. But I’m waiting for you to post some facts on the matter that might suggest you have done some research that supports your hypothesis.

Also, I can deal with arguments, thankyouverymuch, but I appreciate the implication that I don’t know what parts of the internet are good for me to visit. And I’m sorry you didn’t understand the analogy- me thinks it rather obvious.

-TMfM

No.It doesn't literally show that.

It shows there is an inverse relationship between top level of tax and total tax receipts over a period of time. However it does not show that there is a causation or if there is to what degree.

The US population inverse from under 200 million to over 300 million over that time period. The working age population increased by an even larger %. Not using a per capita measure US just 1 example of how the chart does not support the conclusion.

We would also need to look at
Changes to tax thresholds over same time period. Changes to other taxes.
Changes to % of total federal taxes from income tax.
Inflation.
And all the other moving parts of the economy that affect economic growth and as result tax revenues.

The graph does not support the claim (despite what the article claims) that lowering taxes increases tax revenue. It wouldn't even pass as proof in a first year economics course.

Lowering taxes may incense tax revenue , but there is no absolute rule about what taxes, when and by how much.

a reply to: ScepticScot

One, please read my edit. Two, there is an ebb and flow to the chart- it therefor cannot be directly tied to population. If it is tied to jobs, I would argue that’s the point, but I can’t argue anything, as there are WAY too many factors to draw more than the basic correlary that the article makes a point to say. And seeing as I am not an Econ major, I use other sources to make my points.

Ok.

Fair edit.

What is your degree course if you don't mind me asking?

Considering doing my masters part time but young kid in house is putting me off idea.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Disaster and emergency management. I’m doing it online, but some weeks are harder than others, especially now that I’m working on my capstone. I’ve got two little ones and I feel bad for my wife. Between work, the commute and school, I’m barely there to help. Today I’m working on the paper and babysitting so she can nap off a cold. Good luck with whatever you choose- just make sure if you take an online school it has a great mentor program. Mine does, but I’ve had some friends who didn’t and it killed them.

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: ScepticScot

Disaster and emergency management. I’m doing it online, but some weeks are harder than others, especially now that I’m working on my capstone. I’ve got two little ones and I feel bad for my wife. Between work, the commute and school, I’m barely there to help. Today I’m working on the paper and babysitting so she can nap off a cold. Good luck with whatever you choose- just make sure if you take an online school it has a great mentor program. Mine does, but I’ve had some friends who didn’t and it killed them.

Sounds tough but good luck with it.

I don't work using my degree anymore so it would just be for personal satisfaction. Heart wants to start soon but think would make more sense to wait till youngest is bit older.