Whenever some F**K tells you the rich are overtaxed...

[UdoKier]

Print these out and let'em have a gander.







more:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_taxation.htm

http://liberalindex.org/top-rates-graph.php

(You'll have to click on this image...)

[yardwork]

1. Greedy pigs.

Looks like the "good old days" weren't so good for the rich as they are now, heh?

Thanks for posting this link.

[ComerPerro]

2. Great data

The poor bastards. They have had it tough these past years.

Their incomes went up way out of proportion, while their total tax rates went down.

How do they survive?

[LiberalEconomist]

81. You get what you pay for

By and large, the wealthy receive the lion share of the services provided by the government. They benefit from better public safety than any of us. They control the politicians who make decisions for their gain. They can even convince the federal government to use the military in order to preserve their profit margins--all of the military engagements in Latin America (you can even make a case for Vietnam and Iraq).

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. OH YEAH!

I feel so sorry for the rich!Over taxed my ass! Not! Have they no shame? And just so we are clear, bush* is one of the greedy a$$holes that he gave tax cuts too who did not need them!

[UdoKier]

6. Bush is a pauper.

Elsewhere on the site, it shows Bush's 2000 income at $800K, Cheney's was 35 fucking million dollars. In one year. Can you imagine getting a goddamn lotto jackpot EVERY FUCKING YEAR?

:puke:

[JohnnyRingo]

4. But but but....They worked hard for THEIR money!

....As if no one else does.

[dumpster_baby]

5. WOW! You BRING IT, UdoKier. Great charts. I am saving those...

..nothing quite like the cold hard facts to make an argument.

But you know one big reason why the elite kept the taxes high in those days--they were afraid of socialism. THey used most of that money to manipulate things all over the world, and in the media.

[camero]

7. Bookmarked

Lately, the rich campaigning for lower taxes and less regulation sounds exceedingly like thieves saying theft should be legal and murderers saying murder should be legal because those laws punish them.

[warriorjason]

8. Are those facts correct?

I'm not saying that they are not correct but I'm a CPA and I do know that the top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all taxes. I don't think that is enough but I was just curious as to where you got your facts.

[dumpster_baby]

9. all the sources are listed in that site

and I think that figure you quote is wrong, and if it is right, then they need to be paying more in taxes.

[warriorjason]

10. The poor should not have to pay for anything

The poor should more or less not have to pay for anything untill they can get back on their feet.

[RivetJoint]

32. While their rates

have gone down, the percentage they pay has gone up. No big deal.

[UdoKier]

38. Your post is worded deceptively.

I'm sure you mean to say "while their INCOME TAX RATES have gone up, the percentage OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX REVENUES they pay has gone up.

But that doesn't change the fact that the OVERALL tax burden has been shifted DONWARD over the last 20 years through increasingly regressive taxation.

And that *IS* a big deal.

[RivetJoint]

51. How do you figure that?

In 1980, the top 1% paid 19.05% of the federal income tax burden, in 2001 (last year of the chart), they paid 33.9%

In 1980, the top 5% paid 36.84, in 2001 they paid 53.25.

In 1980, the top 50% paid 92.95 %. In 2001, they paid 96.03

Tell me again how the burden has been shifted downwards?


NOW, from 2002 to 2014 it is expected to shift down some. THAT is what we have to fix!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

[UdoKier]

56. Because you are acting as though Federal Income Tax is the only tax.

With EVERY reduction in the federal income tax since Reagan (mostly in the top brackets) there have been corresponding cuts in funding to the states, who are forced to jack up regressive state and local taxes, thus shifting the OVERALL tax burden downward. How am I being unclear?

[RivetJoint]

60. You might be right

Show me a source that shows that federal outlays to the states have decreased in the last 20 years and I'll buy your arguement.

[UdoKier]

62. I'll look, but the outlays are not the main point. The taxation is.

And the overall tax burden on the wealthy is NOT significantly higher than on working people.

Figure in the fact that most large corporations pay little or NOTHING in taxes today, and the system seems totally jerry-rigged against the little guy.

[RivetJoint]

65. You mean as a percentage

of income, I assume. Because, obviously, one who makes $250K a year pays more in federal/state/local income taxes than one who makes $40K/year.

I agree with you about corporations. Their shares (percentage) of taxes paid has greatly fallen.

[UdoKier]

67. Yes, andd that's what matters, since...

poor working people spend every cent to live, and the wealthy have to spend very little.

[RivetJoint]

70. And your remedy is?

[UdoKier]

73. In increase to Clinton-era income tax levels...

...paired with an increase in the minimum wage. The money is not there to send to the the states, and they can't cut their taxes much (though they could be made less regressive).

Some reduction in payroll tax might be good too.

[RivetJoint]

75. It's time we did away with the so called payroll tax

and end the social security "insurance" system alltogether. Let's make the welfare program most Americans seem to think it is.

[Blue Wally]

84. States have the option

States can have a steeply progressive income tax instead of sales taxes.

[TahitiNut]

74. Income is taxed, not people.

You say, "In 1980, the top 1% paid 19.05% of the federal income tax burden, in 2001 (last year of the chart), they paid 33.9%."

What you avoided saying is that in 1980, the top 1% collected 8.46% of all income (AGI) while, in 2001, they collected 17.58% of all income!

Thus, while their share of the income tax burden increased by 78%, their share of all the income itself increased by 108%!

You say, "In 1980, the top 5% paid 36.84%, in 2001 they paid 53.25%."

What you avoided saying is that the top 5% collected 21.0% of all income, and in 2001 they collected 32.0% of all income.

Thus, while their share of the income tax burden increased by 44.5%, their share of all the income itself increased by 52.4%!

The failure to make this clear is how freeptards and reichbots LIE.

The increasing income inequity (to banana republic levels) is part and parcel of the 25-year rape of the working class. Even this is an understatement of the increasing income inequity, since "AGI" hides income, understating the actual income collected by the wealthiest.

[EOTE]

83. Not only that....

But the top 1% of wage earners earn a hell of a lot more in terms of a percentage of the total economy now compared to 1980. The tope 1% of wage earners earn an obscenely disproportionate amount of money in terms of a percentage of the total.

[sandnsea]

12. The top 10% used to

I think that's the point. And what the graph shows. Low and middle income people didn't used to pay hardly any taxes, the wealthy always did. There was also a more equal distribution of income. That's why low income people could afford housing, etc. There was less income disparity so the basics weren't priced terribly far out of reach like it is today. We're being fucked by Reaganism. And as long as people spread their rhetoric, like your tax figures, 90% of Americans will continue to be fucked. The 90% of households that make less than $100,000 a year, which very few people believe when you tell them. How can so few people pay so much taxes? They're rich beyond anything that's been experienced since the robber barons, that's how.

[KitSileya]

22. I have no grasp of maths,

but is the fact you state comparable to how, if out of 100 people, 99 earn $10 a year and pay $1 in taxes, and 1 person earns $1000 and pay $10 in taxes, that 100th guy is paying over 50% of all taxes?

I mean, fair enough that those who earn more are paying the most taxes, but that is because those bottom 50% just don't have enough to pay, while those with million-dollar income can afford to pay $100,000 in taxes, and still have $900,000 left to play with. Tax those bottom %50 10% on a $10,000 income, and they'll have a significantly lower living standard.

I guess it's sort of a reverse of that old example of Bill Gates going into a soup kitchen with 30 homeless people and 2 nuns, and the average income of the people in the room will still be $1 billion.

Note: all numbers are made up - except, I believe in the Bill Gates example, which isn't mine anyway.

KitSileya

[Blue Wally]

30. Not all taxes.......

Only personal income taxes.

Factor in FICA, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes and it isn't as badly skewed.

[UdoKier]

37. Um, yes they are.

The wealthy pay most *INCOME* taxes, because there is still some progressivity to the federal income tax. Most of the other state and local taxes are highly regressive. If you are "curious" where I got my facts, why don't you follow the links I posted. All their stats are documented.

[dansolo]

112. That statistic is worthless, and misleading

"top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all taxes"

This is a rhetorical trick that masks the fact that you are associating two unlike things, but are making a direct comparison between them. You don't compare the number of wage earners, which treats ever single wage earner identically, with the taxes they pay. What is the percentage of income being earned by the top 50% of all wage earners? Suddenly the talking point isn't quite so shocking.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

11. Where does "too much" start?

$50K, $75K, $100K? Just want to get a feel for what the perspective is around here.

[sandnsea]

13. Do you really?

Answer some questions. How much is the average household income? What's the poverty rate for a family of 4? How much wealth does the top 1% of Americans hold? How many households, many dual earning households, earn over $100,000? Over $200,000? Do you really have a handle on the financial well-being of the average American, before you start feeling sorry for the handful who are well off?

[Fuzzy LaRue]

14. The reason I ask is...

because I have gone from being homeless and broke, to earning $202.99 a week to $200K (this year) from 2001 to the present. I do not know what the average is for the country. What it is for a two income family. I did not put my question forth to complain, I am truly curious.

[sandnsea]

15. You earn $200K?

You ought to be able to find out some income statistics, if you care. They're at census.gov.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

16. $200K projected this year.

Is this too much? Of course a big chunk is going to go to taxes. I am not complaining. Plenty is going to be left over. A few toys and trips are all I really want. Does not take much for a single guy to make do.

[sandnsea]

17. Income statistics

You said "I do not know what the average is for the country." Do you care? Wouldn't you like to know how high up the pile you are? Wasn't that what we were talking about? census.gov

[Fuzzy LaRue]

18. Okay, Looked at the site.

I don't feel like I am making almost 5 times what the average household makes. But those are just government statistics. I was wondering what ordinary, everyday people thought was too much. What do you, seansand, think is too much?

[sandnsea]

19. lol

You don't think you're in the top 2% of income earners. You're surprised most families live on less than $45,000 a year, are you. Well, I suspect most people are surprised.

It isn't a question of how much is too much. It's a question of 98% of Americans being shit on and told to like it because the top 2% are having such a tough, tough time making ends meet with all the regulations and taxes. Suck it up and ignore the chemicals in your ground water and air. It's making you sick and you don't have health insurance, aw, stop your whining. Think how hard it is for the top 2% to comply with all those silly EPA regulations. To provide health insurance on top of it, gads no, they'd have to stop buying yachats and that would be a catastrophe for the yachting industry. You don't want to hurt the poor yacht builders who are making $8.00 an hour too, do you?

It's about getting fucked, both in wages and benefits. Whether through the corporate or through subsidized programs. Now, the corporates get more of them than we do. And we're paying for it, through lower wages, less services, and higher cost of living.

Wake up. And you do not make $200,000 a year, good grief.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

20. I do to!

I own a Phillips 66 Truck stop. A quick lube, an auto detail shop and just bought an ice distributorship this month.

I am still shocked to find my self in top 2% though. I saw myself as comfortably middle class.

[sandnsea]

21. Well good if you do, "too"

It's scary isn't it. On the one hand, I know $200,000 isn't oodles and oodles of money. Not for just one year. Over many years though, it gives a person an ability to accumulate wealth and that makes all the difference. I think most people think there are many less low income people than there are $200,000 people. But it's far from true. I've seen straight wage statistics and the median wage is only around $15 an hour, $31,000 a year. 50% of people earn less than $31,000 a year, and we're supposed to feel bad because the wealthy pay the bulk of the taxes. Well that's because they won't give people a fair salary anymore. 90% are less than $100,000 a year. I think if most people understood the realities of making a living in America, we'd make the kinds of changes that need to be made. They wouldn't hurt the $200,000 people at all, but some stockholders and CEO's might have to come back down to earth, the way they did pre-Reagan. It would be good for equality and opportunity and democracy, all around.

And if you're making your $200,000 on the backs of $5.00 an hour workers, you're a shithead. It didn't used to be that way. Look at the charts, people didn't used to think they had to make 10 times what their employees did. We were equals, once upon a time.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

23. Some jobs are only worth $5.00 an hour.

Sacking ice is not a job that is going to pay much. Now my guys doing oil changes are not mechanics and are not going to be paid like mechanics, but I pay them like entry level techs. I start everyone out cheap with structured raised depending on performance and seniority. I do this because I have a high turnover rate (all small businesses do) and I don't believe in starting out someone at a higher wage that is not going to stay.

These people are not my partners, they are my employees. I start them out cheap like I said, but within 90 days, they are getting a bit more than they would doing the same job for someone else in this town.

[theoceansnerves]

26. ugh. n/t.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

28. wow, you're so... compassionate

-

[yankeedem]

29. Ever think that if you paid a higher wage

You wouldn't have a high turnover rate? No, cram more money into your pockets, and screw the hapless fuck who is putting food on YOUR table (while being unable to afford his own food).

BTW, ask Costco about employee seniority. They have 20% turnover in an industry that has 100% turnover. Of course, they pay their employees a fair living wage....

[durablend]

35. One HUGE problem with Costco...

They're liberal biased...

THE BASTARDS!!!! ;)

[JNelson6563]

33. That's funny

When my family had a small business we had a turn-over rate of ZERO. Someone had to die for there to be an opening. But then again, we treated our help very well. We treated them like partners and they worked with a pride of ownership in our stores, which might explain why our sales increased dramatically year after year.

The zero turn-over was wonderful. We never had to spend the time/money to re-train, we had a postive atmosphere and the customers all grew to know and love the folks who worked for us.

But then again, we viewed the employees as fellow humans, not worker bee drones.

Julie

[Fuzzy LaRue]

34. This is an oil field town.

All the good paying jobs are in the oil field. There is no way I can pay the $15-$20 an hour that the oil well service pay. That is where everyone goes.

High school kids will work at the local supermarket, convenience stores or for me for a while then move on to the higher paying oil field jobs.

[UdoKier]

45. If you pay people $5 per hour...

You are paying a pittance.



Look at how little today's minumum wage buys when adjusted for inflation.

And besides, how are you paying "slightly more" than somebody else? $5 is LESS than the federal minimum wage.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

53. I was tossing $5 an hour out there as a figure.

There ARE some jobs that are only worth minimum wage. I have a part time kid that comes after school, cleans up, changes my signs and fills my drink machines. Minimum wage is all that job is worth. My clerks and techs of course make much more.

I have mostly young women and recent high school grads working here. Most young men prefer the oil fields than working here in town unless they have a skill or trade (mechanic, plumber, electrician) that pays better.

This is a business and I do have to maintain a viable profit margin.

[uncle ray]

87. you call yourself middle class at 200g

and pay some of your workers minimum wage? where the fuck is this guys tombstone?

[Fuzzy LaRue]

90. Tombstone?

Is there an income cap on this site? If you read my posts, I only pay minimum wage to the part time high school kids and new employees.
With in a month they get their first raise (longer for the part timers) and in three months they get paid more working for me than they would at my competition.

Sorry you find my having more money than you so bothersome you would like me kicked off of the site.

[camero]

91. Making money off the backs of the poor

whom you consider to be overpaid is called exploitation, in a word.

They butter your bread. You don't butter theirs and in fact make it harder for them. A little less money to yourself and a little more to them makes everyone happy.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

93. I never said my employees are overpaid.

They are paid about 15% over market if they stay long enough. This not counting advances on their pay that I spot them then "forget" to collect.

I bought two cars this summer for two of my employees and they are making payments to me on them for no interest.

I have bought Pampers, school clothes. Paid deposits on utilities for some of my workers. They are in no way mistreated.

[camero]

94. If you paid them better

they wouldn't need all of those "favors" and you bought two cars to sell to them. You didn't buy them for them.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

98. Did not make a dime on the cars.

[uncle ray]

101. damn, you got me, i'm just jealous cuz you got more than i do.

thanks for reminding me of my place.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

105. Hey,

you are the one calling for my tombstoning for no other reason that I could see. Why did you call for that?

[uncle ray]

110. no i didn't

i expressed my amazement that you had not already been tombstoned, by a moderator, for your comments. i never have, and never will hit the alert button, on ANYBODY.

if you think its perfectly fair to pay your employees the absolute minimum you have to, ie. just enough to keep them from going to the competition, while you have the luxury to give nary a thought to how much you have, then i hope you stick around DU a long time. you might learn something, like controlling your enthusiasm for capitalism a wee bit around here.

[TahitiNut]

79. Bullshit!

If you want to see how much a job is "worth" just don't do it and see how much it costs you!

Alternatively, raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and see how many of those "minimum wage jobs" go away. (Hint: They don't.)

The morally bankrupt notion that labor's worth should be defined by the simplistic and inhumane 'supply/demand' dynamics of a market ... just like some commodity ... is even against Federal Law (15 USC 17)! It's this kind of thnking that leads to slavery (slave markets) and totalitarianism.

---

TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 17.

Sec. 17. - Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

---

Read Minimum Wages and the Human Commodity.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

80. aIf the Minumum wage went to $15 an hour,

half my work force would have to get $15 an hour somewhere else. No way I could afford to pay that much. The kids that I get to come by after school would just do without that little bit of income and I would just task those duties out to my full time employees. I have to maintain a certain level of viability to keep my business operating and I will not go below it.

[serryjw]

100. Ok! OK! you didn't make yourself clear.

Minimum wage for a high school student is fair. I was referring to an adult whom is working for you full time. There is no way anyone can or should live on anything less than $10/hour and that depends on where you live? 15 years ago I lived in Spartenburg SC for 6 months...My apt was 1/2 of what is was in Atlanta. I was making $30 and I was RICH! Money went very far..Try $30K in Atlanta and you are in poverty

In 1980 I was in a nationwide sales forse for a division of Avery Label. I made $33K and a fully paid company car. I was struggling living in LA. My counterparts living in the South made the same thing and were RICH on that income.

[UdoKier]

102. I don't think we'll ever see that drastic an increase.

However, I do think the minimum wage should have an annual review, and be adjusted according to inflation.

You imply that unemployment would rise. (It probably would with such an unfair and drastic increase - but that NEVER happense) History has shown that unemployment does NOT rise when the minimum wage is increased.



Last, I find the tone of your posts slightly smug, and thus I understand the suspicion some feel towards you. I do think it's been out of proportion and unfair. I hope you learn the ropes and learn how to fit in here. We're not all "anti-business" here, but you should be warned that most of us will take the side of the little guy EVERY TIME. If we don't, who the hell else will?

[serryjw]

89. Try it the opposite way

I hear your justification for low wages. As a business owner what does it cost you to interview, train and supervise a new employee. Pay them 20% above market for that job. You would be surprised on the productivity and loyalty to you and your company will get.
What does it cost you for unsatisfied customers?
What does it cost you when you don't have the freedom to NOT be there because you have to always keep them on their toes?

You don't build your company..your employees do! Most business owners don't spend as much time with THEIR customers as THEIR employees do? What does it cost you that your receptionist whom answers your phone has *attitude*??
When was the last time you said 'thank you" to your employees for a job well done? When was the last time you bought in Pizza to thank them.
I was a sales mgr 15 years ago for true entrepreneur. He owned a $15 million company. EVERY OTHER Friday on pay day he bought the pay check to EACH employee and said thank you! Do you think he had their loyalty?

[Fuzzy LaRue]

92. I really do not know why you guys think I am a Scrooge.

I treat my employees well. Spot them a few bucks between paychecks and then "forget" to collect it from their pay. I allow overtime while my competition keeps a close eye on his employees' hours. Lunch (Dominos or Subway) is on me on Fridays. I make allowances for football practice and games for my high school help.

After 3 months my employees make about 15% more (not counting the overtime) than they would at Mike's Quick Lube, Mack's Shell or Like New Auto Wash.

[serryjw]

95. Thats nice

You were the one who said that your ice employee should not make more.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

99. That is because the Ice is not a full time job.

Two hours a day and all the ice I need sacked to fill my boxes up is done. Hell, I do it when the kid needs time for football practice or has a game. I could really do it everyday, but why take the kid's job?

[Character Assassin]

96. Most likely, they've never run or owned a business

Don't worry about that. Until they do, the scales of self-imposed reality will still cover their eyes.

Until one graduates from college, accounting and finace can seem like political science afterthoughts, rather than the real world.

[sendero]

106. Exactly...

.... while I am as progressive as they come on economic issues, the naievete of some here is startling.

Sure, just pay all of your employees $15 an hour while your competitors are paying $5.

Soon, you will have no business and they will need another job.

Think it sucks that someone makes $200K? Start 3-4 businesses of your own and join the club if you can.

I'm all for the well off paying their fair share of taxes, which IMHO should be a higher percentage of their income than lower-income folks. But I'm not about to join the "you worked hard and made it so you suck" club. And those in that club can pack sand.

[UdoKier]

103. You kinda brought it on yourself...

It may seem unfair, but by introducing yourself with a "rags-to-riches" story, bragging about your wealth and the fact that you pay your employees the minimum, you've followed a pattern we've seen done a MILLION times by freepers and disruptors. I'm not saying that I think you're one of them. But we have seen it before.

As far as I can see, you're okay - but only time will tell.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

107. I find it kind of...

insulting in a way. Not personally, but on a general level I find it insulting that you would believe that only a freeper would have the drive, skill and balls to go from nothing to being successful. A Democrat or liberal is not capable of the same thing?

My employees do really well working for me if they stay. We are all buddies here because I have never been a boss before so I do not know how a boss is supposed to act. I do know what used to piss me off about the bosses I had before and I don't do that to my employees.
But I cannot give my employees more than what is fair (and to me that would be a bit over market). If I wanted someone to have an equal share, I WOULD GET MARRIED AGAIN! LOL!

[UdoKier]

109. I never said that.

There are plenty of democrats who've done that (though as is the case with republicans, they are the minority). Its the smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude that's setting off people's alarms. And I never suggested you pay anything but the minimum wage, which $5 an hour is not quite. I know quite a few very successful democrats, and they all show a great deal more modesty and humility than you do.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

111. Sorry if I came through that way.

I guess it comes from getting all of this so quick. But rest assured it came through my own efforts and hard work. Something I AM proud of.

[KitSileya]

24. Showing my ignorance again

You state that the median income is $31,000. Does the fact that the top 1% earn astronomical sums 'pad' that mediam? If, for example, one removed the top 1%, what would the median be? Significantly lower?

Just wondering,
KitSileya

[sandnsea]

25. Never thought about it

Those are wages too, so I would imagine the top 1% that doesn't get its income from wages is already out of that statistic. Know what I mean? But I don't know and I don't feel like researching it at this hour!

[Blue Wally]

31. No.....

The term "median" means that half make more and half make less than that number. The term "mean" or "average" is the number which is skewed by very high numbers at the top end.

[KitSileya]

36. :)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm a language person, math is a completely foreign subject. (I'd say it's completely Greek to me, but I think I'd actually have a shot at learning Greek.)

KitSileya

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

50. No

The nature of the median statistic, as opposed to averages, is to correct for this.

100
4
3
2
1

The average of these numbers is 110/5 = 22. The median is 3. People use the words as interchangeable, but they aren't.

[UdoKier]

43. If you consider yourself "comfortable", you're not middle class.

Middle-class people still have to juggle bills to make ends meet, even though they're not "poor".

They may be able to afford the vacation to Yosemite, but a hospital stay can still put them into too much debt.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

46. I am comfortable in my personal life,

business wise, cashflow is not what it should be. Especially with the crazy flucuation of gas prices. Sometimes it goes up by more than what my profit margin is. That always hurts.

[Dorian Gray]

66. Sometimes

A hospital stay can put the Upper Middle Classes in debt!

(Just saying!)

[UdoKier]

42. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

I realize that it's a favorite tactic of "some people" to point out how they went from rags to riches in to time with a "little elbow grease".

But you have to play along. They always tip their hand, eventually.

[Fuzzy LaRue]

44. Some elbowgrease, a lot of luck...

to be honest.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

82. connections, some family support

like our pResident, you're a self-made man! :eyes:

[Fuzzy LaRue]

97. Oh, far from it Rose.

My Phillips 66 I bought a year ago this past August after working there for two years. That was lucky because the owner financed it himself when he retired. I was living in a small room at the station from when I started working there. I fixed computers and motorcycles after hours and on sundays. With the money I saved up (don't drink or do drugs) I was able to fill the tanks at the station.

The Quick Lube was foreclosure. The owner there developed a nasty cocaine habit and lost everything.

The ice business was to good a deal to pass up, only $40K for the ice makers, ice boxes AND the sales sites. The bank loaned me 90%.

[UdoKier]

104. I don't drink, do drugs, smoke, buy nice clothes, or a nice car...

...or much of anything, and I can't save up anything. Good for you, but most of us have to pay rent (and here in San Francisco, it's a big chunk 'o' change)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

108. In Texas it's a pittance

He could never do what he did in Boston, NY, or San Fran.

[UdoKier]

41. If you're making $200k, you ARE making 5 times the average family.

And nobody here would fault you for that.

I'm sure if I made that much, I could easily put it all to use, and without a lot of frivolous spending.

I don't think anyone here comes at this with an attitude of punishing the wealthy. It's simply a moral imperative to tax those who spend every penny on survival LESS than those who have money to put aside for luxuries like investments, housekeepers, private schools, 2nd cars, jacuzzis, etc.

[serryjw]

88. Congrads...you obviously have done a great job of getting out of poverty.

You need to think back on when you were BROKE! When you made $202/week! The issues is NOT what is TOO much. I assume you earned your money honestly.

It's a fairness thing. I don't know why need to tax basic survival. food,shelter,utilities. Here in CO our bus rates last year was 75cents for off peak and $1.00 for peak. Then it went to $1.10 for peak...NOW IT IS $1.25 ALL DAY! Think about how much of an increase that is for the working poor?
I was in the emergency room yesterday. I thought I was having a heart attack!They did blood test, EKG and chest ex rays and my bill is OVER $5000. How is anyone who makes $20K yearly supposed to pay this?
I don't begrudge anyone their toys if they earned their money honestly.
BUT why should someone live on the streets of America and another get a $35 MILLION tax break?
The truth is middle American makes the economy robust. We spend the money. When Bushit gave his tax break to the Waltons, all they did was invest it in the same companies that are laying off middle America. They didn't help the economy

[UdoKier]

40. If so, you are an exceptional case.

Most people will never see that kind of income.

[UdoKier]

39. Too much what?

maybe you should be more clear as to what ou're talking about.

Too much income?

Too much tax?

[Fuzzy LaRue]

47. Too Much Income.

What is too much income? That is what I am curious about.

[UdoKier]

49. There are some who would say there is such a thing.

But they are not democrats. I don't think many democrats would favor a top marginal rate over 50%, especially with capital being as mobile as it it.

But there are many privileges to living in this country, and the rich make use of them more than they realize. Their interests overseas are protected by our military. The products they sell travel on our federal highways, etc., etc.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

52. You made a typo

You wrote:

Their interests overseas are protected by our military.

It should read:

Protecting their interests overseas is the only thing the military does, and the military is the largest beneficiary of tax dollars.

[Blue Wally]

55. Not true anymore

Back in the Eisenhower years, defense was 50% of the federal budget. It is nowheres near that now.

[IrateCitizen]

57. Au contraire...

If you factor in the interest being paid on past war and military spending debts (which is, after all, a direct cost of maintaining our military machine), along with special funds set aside for ongoing military misadventures, that figure is over 50% once again.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

77. Isn't it still a plurality?

Is there any bigger budget item?

[ProfessorGAC]

54. Even 50% Is Too High

It is an established macroeconomic fact (this is one of the rare circumstances where liberal and conservative economists agree) that the gov't slows down the velocity of money. So, marginal tax rates to the monolithic federal treasury puts an overall drag on the economy.

If the tax rates get too high, and that money can neither be spent in the very short term, or immediately invested as discretionary funds, it's actually a weakening lever on GDP and directly on employment levels.

I'm not in support of lowering the high end at all. It just appears from the data that anything over the low 40's would begin to have a deleterious effect on overall growth. It also COULD create some monetary inflationary pressures. (Not necessarily, but fidgety legislators and administrations could do something stupid with the money supply.)

Not looking for a fight. Just chiming in as someone who really studies this stuff.
The Professor

[UdoKier]

58. I won't argue it since I'm no expert..

However, some of our best economic growth was in the 60s when the top rate was 70+%. I also realize that there may have been more loopholes then...

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Two Problems

First, that stat about the best economic growth is not true. The period 1963 to 1969 was very good. But by the late 60's so much money was being spent on defense which created rising deficit spending, that there is some illusion over truth there. (Same as Reaganomics in the 80's.) So, your illustration is not fully accurate.

The 50's had two short recessionary periods, when tax rates were confiscatory. But, there were some very good economic years as well.

Lastly, by your own admission, the tax code was far more liberally spiced with loopholes that applied only to those with the most money. So, you kind of exploded your own argument.

Trust me on this. The econometric modeling makes it clear that there IS a real tax rate that is too high. It appears that anything that requires the investor class to pay over 40% of income will begin to drag on the economy. Not just my opinion, by the way. Like i said, it's one of the few points of consensus in the economics community.
The Professor

[UdoKier]

68. Like I said, I won't argue that.

It makes perfect sense that there is such a thing as too much tax. I'll leave it to the scientists to figure out just what that number is.

But it's quite clear we're not anywhere near that number now, and that poverty is rising alarmingly....

[ProfessorGAC]

78. You Have Found Our Point of Complete Agreement

I cannot disagree with that sentiment at all. Poverty was already too high and getting worse. There is an obvious economic and social justice disconnect for that to happen in this country. It's completely unacceptable.
The Professor

[rniel]

48. For the first time I actually feel

like i'd like to go back to the way it was in the 1950s

at least when it comes to this chart.

[Blue Wally]

59. Hey, it hit the low end too.

In 1962, my gross adjusted income was $2,662.00. I got $600.00 each for myself, wife, and baby. I also got a $266.00 standard exemption. This left $596.00 as "taxable income" which got taxed at 20%. The Kennedy tax cut which went into effect in 1963 really helped me out. Trust me, you really don't want to go back to the fifites tax brackets.

[Egalitariat]

61. The numbers here can't be right

Marginal tax rates might have made it north of 80% in the 50's. I don't think so, but I don't know so I won't comment.

However, I know for sure that Effective tax rates were never higher than 80%. Ever. To get to an effective tax rate of 80%, you'd have to have marginal rates of over 100%.

Never happened.

[UdoKier]

64. You may be right...

I believe the top parginal rate in the early 60's was 73% or so.

I don't know how they come up with the top effective rate number.

The fact remains that the rates are extremely low today in a historical context.

I think this is a more accurate representation:

http://liberalindex.org/top-rates-graph.php

[RivetJoint]

72. The rates

are irrelevant.

The percentage of income tax paid by each income level is what matters.

[Blue Wally]

85. Everyone moves up through the lower brackets

The top rate applies to marginal income at the top bracket. Before 1962, the top marginal rate was 91%. That meant that opnce you got above a certain threshold, 91% of every dollar went to income taxes. JFK cut this to 70% effective in 1963.

[JHB]

69. Database of historical tax brackets:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=30

Also check the tax burden page for historical numbers (not all go back to the 50s).
http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic3id=22&topic2id=20

[UdoKier]

71. Your link shows the top rate at 92% in the 50s

consistent with the original graph I posted - it was a matter of some dispute.

[JHB]

76. 92% but limited to an effective rate of 88%...

...Which is proabably why the graph you show doesn't break the 90% line. Whether anyone actually hit that 88% limit is a matter for tax-record-research.

[eridani]

86. How many people are left out?

This is all very well done, but limited to people who file tax returns. What do we know about the underclass that doesn't file any, or the impact of the large percentage of people we have in prison?