OtherGround Forum >> The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

Stronghold - Everyone loves spending everyone else's money.

micmac - 

Lite - There's a lot left unsaid in the article, understandable. Given the amount of exemptions and loopholes available to the wealthy today--something Romney gave us a good lesson on--it's pretty mind boggling that they had more back then, but it may be true.

The crux of the article, though, is the last line, where he repeats the trickle-down mantra and higher rates will disincentivize innovation and job creation. He doesn't support that, and in fact, studies of the kinds of tax increases that we're talking about currently, something like a move from 35 to 39% on portions of income over 250,000, don't back him up at all.

Personally, I believe that leveling the playing field by offering more people a competitive start in life would spur innovation and job creation. Of course their should be material rewards for success, and there would be and there always has been. A tax jump to 39% for income over $250,000 certainly isn't going to change that.

I agree with you (except that Schiff is not making an argument at all for OR against the expiry of the Bush tax cuts).

Ultimately I believe the debate over small tax rate increases to personal income taxes is a distraction from the two real problems.

First, government spending/entitlement programs are going to destroy the economy if top personal marginal rates are at 35, 39 or 49.

Second, the tax rates that REALLY matter are corporate rates. Bring the jobs back to America, and taxpayers won't really care if they are paying 25 or 30 if it means their income goes from $0.00 to an level that will feed their family.

jzspanky - 

Stronghold - Everyone loves spending everyone else's money.

Well this is about collecting the money, spending it is phase two... but keep up the tired cliche thing.

Stronghold -

jzspanky - 

Stronghold - Everyone loves spending everyone else's money.

Well this is about collecting the money, spending it is phase two... but keep up the tired cliche thing.

Fine but my larger point was that increase in taxes will not be enough to stop government over spending, waste, inefficiency, and graft. Phase 1 should be getting that shit under some control.

But, hey, it is a cliche so ignore the point.

matt murdock - I hear libs often say something along the lines of, "it doesn't matter if it's 35%, 39%, 45%, etc" The massive sell off in anticipation of higher taxes in the new year would seem to indicate otherwise;

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49792979/

matt murdock - I hear libs often say something along the lines of, "it doesn't matter if it's 35%, 39%, 45%, etc" The massive sell off in anticipation of higher taxes in the new year would seem to indicate otherwise;

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49792979/

Billco -  Ophusker is 100% correct. Effective tax rates are what people actually pay according to their AGI, deductions, and credits.

Everything else I'd just window dressing, which is what Schiff is trying to say.

Lol at the only number that matters is 4. whoever said that is an insufferable douche bag in real life. Of that, I am certain.

ProteusSFM - 

jzspanky -

ProteusSFM - 

I'm flattered. But I guess that encapsulates my whole point, you mean nothing to me, but you take the time to glorify me. Enjoy your day and keep up the good work.

ProteusSFM - 

jzspanky -

ProteusSFM - 

I'm flattered. But I guess that encapsulates my whole point, you mean nothing to me, but you take the time to glorify me. Enjoy your day and keep up the good work.

That's what I told your mom.

Zanzoken - To me, the issue is not MTRs vs effective rates or whether forcing high earners to pay higher taxes will actually help everyone else.

Even if you assume that raising taxes on the (for instance) top 10% of earners will help the bottom 90%, the question in my mind is, is it really ethical to do that? Does the government have the responsibility (or even the right) to take from one person and give to another, for the sole reason that the second person will be better off?

If so, I'm not sure how that position can be reconciled with ideas like freedom and property rights. If your income can be seized just because a majority wants it to be, I don't see how it's really yours to begin with.

Billco - What benefit does the SEC have to the health of the market? Y policing it. They haven't exactly done the best job.

I think everybody sunderstands that tax dollars of tax payers go to programs or cost centers they don't necessiraly believe in. I think everyone's point is that whatever if given back through increases will do nearly nothing to fix the problem ( about 10% of deficit will be trimmed), but the other 90% can be made up of spending cut , mostly entitlement reform. Do we have any concrete ideas from either side of what cuts need to ne made if we avoid the cliff.....that answer is no, especially when it comes entitlement reform.

It is hilarious that we are now starting to hear the dems en masse talking about growing the economy as a talking point, after they dismissed the the Romney tax plan as a pipe dream because it took into account increase revenue through growth in IRS receipts.

Just shows you both sides are either clueless, or simply do not care.

jzspanky - 

Zanzoken - To me, the issue is not MTRs vs effective rates or whether forcing high earners to pay higher taxes will actually help everyone else.

Even if you assume that raising taxes on the (for instance) top 10% of earners will help the bottom 90%, the question in my mind is, is it really ethical to do that? Does the government have the responsibility (or even the right) to take from one person and give to another, for the sole reason that the second person will be better off?

If so, I'm not sure how that position can be reconciled with ideas like freedom and property rights. If your income can be seized just because a majority wants it to be, I don't see how it's really yours to begin with.

See to me I don't see it like that at all. I see the quality o our nation first and foremost, not one group paying FOR another, but all of us helping the US. Our tax dollars go into a pool in which we fund the country. You may not agree with having a military, but your dollar pay for it. You may not have children, but your dollars pay for the department of education. You may not be vested in the markets, but your dollars pay for the SEC.

I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

Zanzoken -

jzspanky - 

Zanzoken - To me, the issue is not MTRs vs effective rates or whether forcing high earners to pay higher taxes will actually help everyone else.

Even if you assume that raising taxes on the (for instance) top 10% of earners will help the bottom 90%, the question in my mind is, is it really ethical to do that? Does the government have the responsibility (or even the right) to take from one person and give to another, for the sole reason that the second person will be better off?

If so, I'm not sure how that position can be reconciled with ideas like freedom and property rights. If your income can be seized just because a majority wants it to be, I don't see how it's really yours to begin with.

See to me I don't see it like that at all. I see the quality o our nation first and foremost, not one group paying FOR another, but all of us helping the US. Our tax dollars go into a pool in which we fund the country. You may not agree with having a military, but your dollar pay for it. You may not have children, but your dollars pay for the department of education. You may not be vested in the markets, but your dollars pay for the SEC.

I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

The problem with thinking about policy in terms of the "nation", "country", or "society" is that those words are kind of ambiguous, practically speaking. We know that benefits and costs are always incurred by individuals, so it's hard to say what is good for the "nation", because in this sense, the nation is just a made up thing.

That's why I prefer to look at each person as an an end in him/herself, with equal rights to life, liberty, and property, and not as part of a broader collective.