One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Democratic Socialism
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jul 4, 2018 12:44:02   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
Anigav6969 wrote:
Jeez...you're wound tight ...very easily triggered....I think you'll be okay with me here....or maybe not

And yes...your memory is faulty....anyone can google " effective tax rates " for whatever year you like....try it sometime.....and you were the one that made a claim that the effective tax rate was the same In the 50's as it is today for the wealthy......show your sources

My memory stands vindicated you a$$...

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
Scott Greenberg ~ August 4, 2017
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]



The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.

[1] The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.

[2] Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”

[3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

[4] The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.

Reply
Jul 4, 2018 14:47:00   #
Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia
 
Anigav6969 wrote:
It's nice to see someone finally talk about the National Debt here....it was such a big deal under President Obama....now all of a sudden Conservatives don't seem to care....
It's a shame that the poor and the Middle Class have to pay for the ridiculous spending of our government. And the latest tax break didn't help any...
My main point was that we live in a Social Democracy at present....so, for some to freak out at the word " Socialism " is silly......we are living in it....not pure Socialism ....but a combination
It's nice to see someone finally talk about the Na... (show quote)


To compound our difficulties, within not too many months we will begin to lose the dollar as the reserve currency worldwide, and hence remove the ability to simply print money to pay off our loans. The process has already begun, mostly on a peer to peer basis, but the IMF is sponsoring a distributed ledger system for all to use which will do away with dollar exchanges. They will use SDR's instead in a Blockchain network organized system. We will be in great financial difficulty when this occurs formally. I understand that Trump cannot intervene to stop this move.

Reply
Jul 4, 2018 21:14:12   #
Anigav6969
 
mwdegutis wrote:
My memory stands vindicated you a$$...

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
Scott Greenberg ~ August 4, 2017
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]



The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.

[1] The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.

[2] Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”

[3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

[4] The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.
My memory stands vindicated you a$$... br br b T... (show quote)


And you ripped Bloomberg ???......who the hell is Scott Greenberg??? Nice try Arse...

And even if that graph is true.....perfect....raise the effective rate from 36 percent to 42 percent....that would solve a lot of problems....and maybe you can get more from welfare ! See....I'm looking out for you....the bible tells me to

Reply
Check out topic: OPP Poll:..........Guns VS Fentanyl..
Jul 4, 2018 23:34:43   #
Anigav6969
 
mwdegutis wrote:
My memory stands vindicated you a$$...

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
Scott Greenberg ~ August 4, 2017
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The graph below shows the average tax rate that the top 1 percent of Americans have faced over the last century. The data comes from a recent paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman that attempts to account for all federal, state, and local taxes paid by different groups of Americans over the last 100 years.[2]



The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent.

All things considered, this is not a very large change. To put it another way, the average effective tax rate on the 1 percent highest-income households is about 5.6 percentage points lower today than it was in the 1950s. That’s a noticeable change, but not a radical shift.[3]

How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]

There are a few reasons for the discrepancy between the 91 percent top marginal income tax rate and the 16.9 percent effective income tax rate of the 1950s.

• The 91 percent bracket of 1950 only applied to households with income over $200,000 (or about $2 million in today’s dollars). Only a small number of taxpayers would have had enough income to fall into the top bracket – fewer than 10,000 households, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal. Many households in the top 1 percent in the 1950s probably did not fall into the 91 percent bracket to begin with.
• Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
• Finally, it is very likely that the existence of a 91 percent bracket led to significant tax avoidance and lower reported income. There are many studies that show that, as marginal tax rates rise, income reported by taxpayers goes down. As a result, the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent.

All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.

[1] The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.

[2] Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”

[3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

[4] The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.
My memory stands vindicated you a$$... br br b T... (show quote)


I call BS on your Greenberg boy

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/effective-progressive-tax-rates-1950s/

Reply
Jul 5, 2018 00:34:53   #
debeda
 
Manning345 wrote:
The Best Things in Life are Free!
For a year or so we have been treated to the concept of Democratic Socialism from the progressive left politicos, especially by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
It appears that the main thrust of this movement is to buy off the young and old voters with freebees and easy pickings:
Free Healthcare
Free College
Easy Universal Job Guarantee
Easy Infrastructure Overhaul
Easy 100% Renewable Green Energy
Soon to follow are, undoubtedly:
Free Housing
Free Food
Free Clothing
Free Entertainment
Free Insurances
Free Vacations
Open Borders
Paying for this extravaganza is by taxing the rich...really?

There are no realistic guidelines as to how these goals are to be paid for and managed, and the term Democratic is simply a come-on to soften the real meaning of Socialism for the American public.

The inevitable result of voting this nonsense into being must be to find ways to pay for the largess by harnessing the private sector business world to provide substantially more tax revenues. As the years go by, the taxation will increase to the point where the government has to take over each of the financially impoverished businesses and then revive them, which in the end accomplishes the goal of full Socialism, that is, to own the means of production and distribution of goods and services, planning and controlling the economy, and dictating the distribution of money and access to goods by the general public.

Downstream from this contretemps, sliding into full Communism is relatively straightforward. Socialism has always been seen as a waypoint between Capitalism and Communism: All the best things are free and easy for the Elite who run the show, and the military that keep things in order. Then comes the rest of us that look forevermore like slaves to the government Elite. This is hog heaven for the Elite as they have the reins on power and money to do pretty much as they want to do. We peons will struggle to get by.

The last step in this macabre dance is the New World Order (NWO), or world Communist government, and it would not support freedom and liberty for all!
Obviously, we must not let this foot in the door, or...

There went the American Dream!
The Best Things in Life are Free! br For a year or... (show quote)


Ugh. And we have a lot of the prospective slaves in the streets demonstrating FOR this crapola.

Reply
Jul 5, 2018 00:36:27   #
debeda
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Manning345, Thank you for demonstrating an example of gross exaggeration. Although I am not a socialist, by any definition of the word, I don't think your post represents current thinking of democratic socialists. I guess the goals, and definition of democratic socialism differs with the person that you talk with, but this is what I think they have in common:government run health care, universal higher education for those that qualify, a willingness to give up power when defeated in democratic elections, ending long prison sentences for non violent crimes, ending anti labor legislation and court decisions , a progressive tax system, with emphasis on higher taxation for the wealthy, uncontested right of women to control their reproduction, ( abortion ), a reworked social security system guaranteeing that persons over a certain age get enough of money for a decent retirement, a minimum wage reflecting the right of workers to earn a living wage, re education for workers whose trade has become obsolete, example Coal mining, strong environmental laws.
Other liberals and socialists might add a few more, but this is the basic tenants of democratic socialism as I see it.
Manning345, Thank you for demonstrating an example... (show quote)


Well of course it doesn't represent Mr. And Mrs. Main street dems' thoughts. Cuz you're being duped.

Reply
Jul 5, 2018 14:24:14   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
Anigav6969 wrote:
I call BS on your Greenberg boy

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/effective-progressive-tax-rates-1950s/

And I call BS on your Steinbaum boy. He works for a leftist think-tank and provides no data, just opinion, to support his assertions.

Reply
Check out topic: Winston Marshall: Populism Is The Voice Of The Voiceless, The Real Threat To Democracy Is ...
Jul 5, 2018 21:53:05   #
Anigav6969
 
mwdegutis wrote:
And I call BS on your Steinbaum boy. He works for a leftist think-tank and provides no data, just opinion, to support his assertions.


BS all around....except he picked apart that article you posted.......and like I said before.....6 percent difference is a lot !

Reply
Jul 5, 2018 22:00:51   #
mwdegutis Loc: Illinois
 
Anigav6969 wrote:
BS all around....except he picked apart that article you posted.......and like I said before.....6 percent difference is a lot !

6 percent of 1 percent is nothing. I guess that we'll just have to disagree...agreeably.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: Biden's voters who voted for him in 2020 are ditching him for Donald Trump in 2024..
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.