Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, the actual receipts have always been dramatically lower than the rates, because much of the incremental income was never earned as such.

Yes it has -- but not nearly to the same degree. Not even close. In 1980 the top income tax bracket was 3.14 times higher than the effective income tax rate for the top 1%, and in 2007 it was 1.84 times higher. In other words, in 2007 the effective tax rate was a LOT closer to the highest marginal rate than it was in 1980. That suggests to me that to at least some degree, considerably more of the top 1%'s income is subject to income taxes today than it was in 1980.

I can accept that some of this is because of increased disparities in income between the top 1% and "the rest of us" which causes more of it to be taxed into the highest bracket today -- but I still think people are conveniently ignoring that the punitive tax rates pre-1981 were less punitive because of all the tax shelters. Why is that so hard for people to admit? Does it undermine an agenda of restoring the very high rates of the "tax rate glory days" without restoring the deductions of that same "glorious" era? Does it get in the way of the left trying to have it both ways here?

My point is simple: Any arguments in favor of the pre-Reagan income tax policies is incomplete without considering both the marginal rates AND the shelters available at that time, because those combined are what produced the historical results. It's revisionist history to suggest that the rich paid a lot into the 70% brackets (or above) and didn't take advantage of the available tax shelters (which in some cases may have been economically beneficial as well). Suggesting a "return" to 70% tax rates without the deductions is suggesting a "return" to something that never happened.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Yes it has -- but not nearly to the same degree. Not even close. In 1980 the top income tax bracket was 3.14 times higher than the effective income tax rate for the top 1%, and in 2007 it was 1.84 times higher. In other words, in 2007 the effective tax rate was a LOT closer to the highest marginal rate than it was in 1980. That suggests to me that to at least some degree, considerably more of the top 1%'s income is subject to income taxes today than it was in 1980.

I can accept that some of this is because of increased disparities in income between the top 1% and "the rest of us" which causes more of it to be taxed into the highest bracket today -- but I still think people are conveniently ignoring that the punitive tax rates pre-1981 were less punitive because of all the tax shelters. Why is that so hard for people to admit? Does it undermine an agenda of restoring the very high rates of the "tax rate glory days" without restoring the deductions of that same "glorious" era? Does it get in the way of the left trying to have it both ways here?

My point is simple: Any arguments in favor of the pre-Reagan income tax policies are incomplete without considering both the marginal rates AND the shelters available at that time, because those combined are what produced the historical results. It's revisionist history to suggest that the rich paid a lot into the 70% brackets (or above) and didn't take advantage of the available tax shelters (which in some cases may have been economically beneficial as well). Suggesting a "return" to 70% tax rates without the deductions is suggesting a "return" to something that never happened.

You miss part of the point. The rates were never used that much, because incomes tended to remain below the confiscatory level. That's also why accumulated wealth was also constrained. At one point, the wealthiest American was J. Paul Getty at $9 Billion - all due to oil holdings. The same was true for H. L. Hunt when he topped the list at roughly the same amount. Neither was able to break-away like today's billionaires. Hunt, who tried to corner the silver market, kept his money invested and took his hits in the market. Getty died with his money still invested in Getty Oil, which is now funding the Getty Museums. The money that went to his son was taxed at the inheritance tax rate (55% at the time, if memory serves).

So there is no reason not to raise rates again, if the intent is to limit the acquisitiveness of the super-rich. They should be limited in their reach. Here's an article by Brad DeLong on why the top marginal rate should be 70%.

Originally Posted by James50

Well done Chas. Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. No one can now or will be able to in the future say who the good 1% are and who the bad 1% are in a consistent way.

Actually that question completely misses the point, is utterly irrelevant, and amounts to a red herring. The argument is not that the 1% are "bad," but that they are taking too much of the national wealth -- that the national wealth is maldistributed -- and exerting excessive influence over the government. That doesn't mean they are "evil," it means there is something dreadfully wrong with the system.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So there is no reason not to raise rates again, if the intent is to limit the acquisitiveness of the super-rich. They should be limited in their reach. Here's an article by Brad DeLong on why the top marginal rate should be 70%.

It isn't going to happen, but I don't think the problem is an individual accumulating wealth as much as it's with the creation of dynastic wealth which creates generations of brats who feel entitled to everything and never did an honest day of work in their life -- so an estate tax would be more effective, I think, then sky-high marginal rates, especially on earned income.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Sure -- but that would mean someone making (say) $10 million might see the vast majority of their income taxed at 70% or more. And even when we had marginal rates that high, there were enough write-offs and shelters that almost no one paid those rates.

Anyone making $10 million a year and having that show up as AGI on their 1040 needs to dismiss their current set of accountants for a new set of accountants.

Much of that should have been plowed back into Mr. 0.1%’s donated operations registered with the Caribbean RIM Investment Initiative (CRII) to purchase capital development assets. Perhaps in the form of a J-boat -




- those babies are not income, those are business expenses for the operation and a charitable deduction for Mr. 0.1% on his personal 1040 – these assets are obviously needed to transport other potential CRII donors around. I'm sure a Jamaican or Dominican or two are employed to scrap the barnacles to keep it all legit.


Then there’s all donated/expensed private jets – obviously, so donors don’t have to rub elbows with all those damn tourist!


Pssst, this has nothing to do with effective tax rates on Mr. 0.1% because these things don’t show up on Mr. 0.1% tax return.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, the actual receipts have always been dramatically lower than the rates, because much of the incremental income was never earned as such. If there is a corporate rule that your job is such that helicopter service is a necessity, then that cost is borne by the corporation, and written off as a "legitimate expense". You might have a "place in town" that's there for your "exclusive use", because it allows you to be available. Those work-related perks were commonplace in the high-tax days (and not uncommon now, either).

Of course what appears as a legitimate expense varies from business to business. A stretch limo might be a legitimate expense in the movie industry... but not in the mining industry. A helicopter might be the only way to get from one skyscraper to another quickly enough for some purposes in New York City, and if that is a commonplace activity it is as legitimate as a toll on the Ohio Turnpike for a business trip between Cleveland and Toledo. A journey on the Ohio Turnpike between Cleveland and Toledo is never a pleasure (you can trust me on my assessment of the scenic merit of the Ohio Turnpike, at least west of Cleveland!). All 'luxurious' expenditures eventually get dull if done frequently for business.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually that question completely misses the point, is utterly irrelevant, and amounts to a red herring. The argument is not that the 1% are "bad," but that they are taking too much of the national wealth -- that the national wealth is maldistributed -- and exerting excessive influence over the government. That doesn't mean they are "evil," it means there is something dreadfully wrong with the system.

And the reason why I posted what I did appears! Someone actually gets to the root of the problem, we may be spared yet!

~Chas'88

It's true that tax rates before 1980 and tax shelters were both a lot higher than they are now. It's clear to most economists that tax policy is a big reason why inequality has mushroomed and the top 0.1% get so much more than others. Nothing limits them, like the highest rates used to do. Most proposals are merely to raise the highest rates back to where they were under Clinton, plus maybe a higher rate on those making over $1 million a year. Others say rates could go higher on the richest people, and that would be good for the economy. Republican trickle-downers are opposed to any tax increase, and won't allow a tax cut for the middle class unless the rich also get one. They believe that any tax hike on the wealthy will mean fewer jobs.

Mitt, the amazing 15% man. Wait until he releases his income tax return. That should be fun.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

It isn't going to happen, but I don't think the problem is an individual accumulating wealth as much as it's with the creation of dynastic wealth which creates generations of brats who feel entitled to everything and never did an honest day of work in their life -- so an estate tax would be more effective, I think, then sky-high marginal rates, especially on earned income.

I don't think CEOs, corporate managers and financiers are doing much honest work either. They are raking in millions for answering phones and pushing pencils; they make thousands more than those who do their work. They can afford to pay more income and capital gains taxes. The higher rates don't have to be confiscatory either, to do a wealth of good for our national debt and the social/infrastructure spending that we need. Just ending the Bush tax cuts for everyone would do a great deal to close the budget deficit.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Thanks for essentially calling me a liar without providing any hard evidence to support it. I appreciate the respect.

How about this one from a left-leaning think tank, showing the total effective income tax rates from 1979 to 2007? See the second chart on this page:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=456

Yes, for "the 1%" the federal effective rate dropped from 21.8% to 19.0%. (I never claimed the rich didn't get a tax cut, just that it isn't nearly as huge as apoplectic lefties want to claim by using "marginal rates" as evidence.) But note that the "effective" rate of 2007 is much closer to the highest bracket in 2007 than it was in 1979. Unless your claim is that much of this 1% didn't have enough *total* income (sheltered or not) to crack the 70% bracket, methinks you protest too much.

These differences in *total* effective rate are very small relative to the differences in tax levels at the highest brackets. Surely you're not suggesting that much of the "1%" didn't have income high enough to trip the top brackets as late as 1980? And how could the top 1% have an effective tax rate of 21.8% in 1979 with a top marginal rate of 70% if not because of a huge number of shelters and write-offs?

Are these more lies and myths?

This post has been delayed by the crash last night.

Your stats are not relevant to what I was saying. 1979 was long past the peak in marginal rates. In the early 1960s the federal personal income tax took about 8% of GDP and the corporate tax rate took about 3.6%. Today the federal income tax takes 6.2% of GDP, and the corporate tax brings in just 1.3%. Figures are here.

As I look at those figures and more from that very useful table. . .no one understands what has happened in the last few years, but it's horrifying. The federal personal income tax share of GDP actually peaked in the late 1990s at about 10% (bracket creep? I don't know) and guess what--we balanced the budget. In the last two years tax receipts have plummeted. Of course you would expect them to fall absolutely because of the recession--but why should they fall so much as a percentage of GDP?

I get very angry, yes, when people suggest we can't have a healthy economy with lots of growth and high marginal rates. Because we did. When you look at those tables, it's pretty obvious to me at least that the problem we face is that we're not bringing in enough tax revenue and the payroll tax cut made it even worse.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think CEOs, corporate managers and financiers are doing much honest work either. They are raking in millions for answering phones and pushing pencils; they make thousands more than those who do their work. They can afford to pay more income and capital gains taxes.

I knew it would not take long to get back to those evil 1% folks. Do you think the sports stars and entertainers are evil too? I mean what do they contribute that helps anyone? All they do is sing, act, catch footballs, throw baseballs and the like. Are they evil?

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I get very angry, yes, when people suggest we can't have a healthy economy with lots of growth and high marginal rates. Because we did.

I certainly didn't say that. And I certainly didn't say the top tax brackets shouldn't be raised. I simply said we haven't had high marginal rates combined with the significant reduction in deductions and tax shelters as we have today. You'd think I was advocating a zero tax rate over $250K with the reaction I'm getting here.

It appears Romney didn't win Iowa after all. It's a tie. I don't know if that means anything, other than he can't claim total victory in the first primary.

By Reuters
The Iowa Republican Party will certify this month's presidential caucuses as a split decision between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, citing missing data from eight precincts, the Des Moines Register reported on Thursday.
The party had previously awarded the contest to Romney, with an eight vote margin. The official certified caucus results are due out Thursday at 8:15 a.m. local time (1415 GMT).
The Register said the new count put Santorum ahead by 34 votes. However, results from any one of the eight precincts with "missing data" could hold an advantage for Romney, the Register reported.
"It's a split decision," the newspaper said, citing a party official in the state. There are too many holes in the certified total from the caucuses to know for certain who won, it said.

Oh, and Perry dropped out too. No big surprise there.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Oh, and Perry dropped out too. No big surprise there.

There are three reasons why this disappoints me.

First of all, two terms was enough for George Washington but apparently not enough for Perry here in Texas, so maybe it would be good to move him to where terms are Constititionally restricted. Second of all, I was hoping we could get rid of him. And thirdly.... wait, I forgot. Oops.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

There are three reasons why this disappoints me.

First of all, two terms was enough for George Washington but apparently not enough for Perry here in Texas, so maybe it would be good to move him to where terms are Constititionally restricted. Second of all, I was hoping we could get rid of him. And thirdly.... wait, I forgot. Oops.

LOL!!

I still think this is basically Romney's nomination to lose.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

There are three reasons why this disappoints me.

First of all, two terms was enough for George Washington but apparently not enough for Perry here in Texas, so maybe it would be good to move him to where terms are Constititionally restricted. Second of all, I was hoping we could get rid of him. And thirdly.... wait, I forgot. Oops.

Well you know how it is, politicians down here can say or do whatever the hell they feel like doing, and nobody seems to care. People just still keep re-electing them.

Originally Posted by James50

I knew it would not take long to get back to those evil 1% folks. Do you think the sports stars and entertainers are evil too? I mean what do they contribute that helps anyone? All they do is sing, act, catch footballs, throw baseballs and the like. Are they evil?

James50

At no time did Eric imply that the CEOS, corporate managers and financiers were evil. He did say they were undeserving, and a case can be made for that. What does a CEO do that justifies 300-400 times the compensation of an average corporate employee? They certainly don't do nothing, but the something they do is just not that important either. Of course, the same can be said for a sports star (overpaid in my opinion) and entertainers (likewise overpaid). But unlike a corporate guy, entertainers and athletes earn based on what the market will bear. The corporate guy earns based on how good his relations are with the board.

At that, they are still not evil, but they are excessively greedy. That's a sin not a crime ... at least for now.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At no time did Eric imply that the CEOS, corporate managers and financiers were evil. He did say they were undeserving, and a case can be made for that. What does a CEO do that justifies 300-400 times the compensation of an average corporate employee? They certainly don't do nothing, but the something they do is just not that important either. Of course, the same can be said for a sports star (overpaid in my opinion) and entertainers (likewise overpaid). But unlike a corporate guy, entertainers and athletes earn based on what the market will bear. The corporate guy earns based on how good his relations are with the board.

At that, they are still not evil, but they are excessively greedy. That's a sin not a crime ... at least for now.

I agree that sports stars and entertainers are overpaid, but we , colleceively, do get a say about their pay. We can choose to not watch or buy tickets that support these entertainers.But, I don't expect any change on this.

Originally Posted by James50

I knew it would not take long to get back to those evil 1% folks. Do you think the sports stars and entertainers are evil too? I mean what do they contribute that helps anyone? All they do is sing, act, catch footballs, throw baseballs and the like. Are they evil?

James50

Of course, the NY Yankees are; that's why they win so many pennants.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96hC32WwfKw

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What does a CEO do that justifies 300-400 times the compensation of an average corporate employee?

Depends. Are they Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs?

I would agree that many CEOs have compensation that bear little resemblance to the value they truly add. But a few do.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree that sports stars and entertainers are overpaid, but we , colleceively, do get a say about their pay. We can choose to not watch or buy tickets that support these entertainers.But, I don't expect any change on this.

There are many ways we can go with this one. As critical as I am of today's so-called corporate jungle, I don't agree that CEO's don't do anything. They are the equivalent within their organization of what the President is to the nation. But most do make considerable more than the President does even though some folks like to complain about the pay that especially Congresspeople are getting. And aren't many of those same CEO's the ones who complained that the pay of union shop workers was outrageous? Where sports stars and entertainers are concerned, a lot of that falls into the lap of free agency, even though I believe in that principal up to a point. These folks have agents that wheel and deal to get the most money they can, and that is why you pay outrageous ticket prices for attending a big-league sporting event or a big-name music concert. Back in the 1970's I went to see some of the bigger names in music at the time and these concerts weren't anywhere near the budget-buster that a similar experience would be today. For more on this topic I would recommend the book "Ticket Masters" which delves into this scenario in great detail.

Originally Posted by ASB65

It appears Romney didn't win Iowa after all. It's a tie. I don't know if that means anything, other than he can't claim total victory in the first primary.


Oh, and Perry dropped out too. No big surprise there.

More trouble brewing for Mitt-ens

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...sEnabled=false

Mitt Romney's campaign says he has millions invested in Caribbean tax havens

News reports say he has $8 million at least in the Cayman Islands

- if Mitt'ens is of the top 0.1%, I don't think we've even scratch the surface.


But Newt'y has his own problems -

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/01/19/in...to-air-on-abc/

Interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife to air on ABC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...wAQ_story.html

Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s ex-wife, says he wanted ‘open marriage’


Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.

Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”

The next day, Newt Gingrich gave a speech titled “The Demise of American Culture” to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying they hurt families and children.

“When a liberal talks about values, will he or she actually like us to teach American history?” Newt Gingrich told the women’s group. “Will they actually like young people to learn that George Washington was an ethical man? A man of standards, a man who earned the right to be father of this country?”

Appearing at a campaign event in South Carolina on Thursday, the former speaker called the interview by his ex-wife “tawdry and inappropriate,” and refused to answer any questions about it.

And Ricky boy is now having problems with his core in SC -

http://www.fox26medford.com/entertai...,7652664.story

Political Scandal! Rick Santorum's Pro-Life Wife Had Affair with Abortion Doctor

Pro-life presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum has had a set back before the South Carolina primaries after his wife’s dirty little "pro-choice" secret is revealed

....According to them she had a 6-year love affair with an abortion doctor, Tom Allen, 40 years her senior. Making it even more disturbing, he delivered her as a baby.

High pee-uu factors all around, hey?

Maybe they should bring back Cain?

The circus is just getting started.

Well, at least one person is smiling -

Yeah, Obama hasn't looked this good since back when Palin was on the opposing ticket!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I get very angry, yes, when people suggest we can't have a healthy economy with lots of growth and high marginal rates. Because we did. When you look at those tables, it's pretty obvious to me at least that the problem we face is that we're not bringing in enough tax revenue and the payroll tax cut made it even worse.

I'm suggesting that it is a pretty poor idea at this time.

This is not the 50s, 60s, 70s or what have you. This is the 1930s. Not a great idea to raise taxes on anyone, right now. At best, raising taxes on the top 1% will have no impact, good or bad, because these people don't spend that money in the economy; they park it somewhere, probable in T-bills or gold/silver. Maybe they park it in some speculation on energy and commodities that make those things more expensive for the rest of us, but the amount of money we are talking about is minuscule relative to the size of those markets.

At best, one could suggest that by raising revenue, the Congress would be more willing for the federal govt to increase its spending - which is what is actually needed. However, the likelihood of that, particularly with the current Congress, is ziltch.

At worst, this is just another distraction from focusing on the real need - more federal deficit spending.

Here's what is going on -



- households are paying down their bloated debt (i.e. they are 'saving'). That is a good thing in many ways. BUT, when everyone is doing it, you get the paradox of thrift -if everyone is saving, then no one is spending. And if no one is spending, then the economy goes into the toilet and everybody losses their job - we spiral down into a deep economic depression.

We can put a bandaid on this again, like we did after the dot.com bust and get people to go back into toxic private debt, but I hope you would agree that might not be such a good idea.

We could get out of it by exporting to others who want to spend. That's what China has been doing and that is what Germany did to the rest of Euro-land (and you're reading the consequences of that now on a daily basis). The problem for us is we have a trade deficit and that is not likely to go away soon.

There is only one party right now that can spend - it is called federal government deficit spending. And it is the ONLY thing that is keeping the economy moving forward as the private sector pays down its debts. Again, this is the most important graph of our times -




Increasing taxes should only be used as a tactic within the context of really stupid/ignorant politicos to get them to vastly increase federal govt deficit spending. If that is not a possibility, then any tax increases are likely to do more harm than good in our present situation.