[Zelandakh]

 luke warm, on 2012-October-07, 08:16, said:

In 1921, when the tax rate on people making over $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little over $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those making over $100,000. By 1929, after a series of tax rate reductions had cut the tax rate to 24 percent on those making over $100,000, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those making over $100,000.

Perhaps my history books are different to yours but perhaps there was something else that happened to the economy between 1921 and 1929 that had an effect. I seem to recall something about the 1930s too...now what was that again? Whatever, I am sure it was a really good thing for you to want to repeat the procedure.

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2012-October-08, 08:44, said:

... And, while some ingenuously argue that an across the board reduction of the income tax rate provides a benefit for the less weathly as well as the wealthy, it is clear that this is more of a benefit to the wealthy, as they are not as burdened with other taxes - payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. - to the same extent as the middle or lower class.

As total dollars, certainly true, and perhaps also as percent of tax paid. But, a $1000 dollar tax break will likely affect the standard of living of a low income person or family substantially more than a $100,000 break would for someone with tens of millions of dollars.

Sometimes I wonder if very high taxes on the wealthy are a better idea for a society in the long term. Europe has a much longer history than the USA, obviously, and more hard experience with income disparity causing serious problems, sometimes destabilizing a society altogether. The USA has not been around long enough to reach that tipping point, so many here overlook the possibility. But it can happen here, and very well might, if the underclass becomes too large, and the stabilizing middle class shrinks to irrelevancy.

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2012-October-08, 09:05, said:

Sometimes I wonder if very high taxes on the wealthy are a better idea for a society in the long term. Europe has a much longer history than the USA, obviously, and more hard experience with income disparity causing serious problems, sometimes destabilizing a society altogether.

There have been several studies suggesting a correlation between "unhappiness" and the size of gap between the wealthiest and least wealthy in a society. You may think these come only from what Americans might call "liberal sources" but the same studies/sources also suggest a strong link between "happiness" and marriage. It is an interesting discussion how one might try to reduce this gap through alternatives to very high tax rates that generally just cause the super-rich to move their investments somewhere else.

[Flem72]

 ArtK78, on 2012-October-08, 08:44, said:

Why is it an issue? Because it is the avowed goal of the Republican Party to lower the tax burden on the rich. The elimination of the capital gains tax and the corporate income tax as well as an across the board reduction of the personal income tax are only three of the items comprising the tax policy of the Republican Party.

BS alert. Elimination? Or is this just a rehash of lowering rates vs lowering taxes?

Quote

And the idea that most Wall Streeters are solid, straight-ticket Democrats is laughable.

Really? I was speculating; you are asserting. Where's the data to back up your assertion? Connecticutt? Manhattan? (You might pick up Long Island...) You think there all the very wealthy Dems are hot to pay more taxes?

OTOH, never mind. Living in Boulder, Colorado, I can get into any of these discussions at virtually any time of day or night, and I will never get any facts not cooked like bad fish. It is ALWAYS Us vs Them, and meanwhile Us is driving the country to European socialism--which doesn't seem like a model any intelligent empiricist should want to emulate.

[mike777]

Again it is a sad commentary that the Republican partys core value is viewed as making people rich by so many posters.

I was sad that Romney did such a poor job in not framing the issue as one of freedom or at least try and present a moral argument for some of his policies if not an economic one. But to be fair I suppose there is no such thing as an amoral argument.

As at least one poster put it, it may make people happier to take money from some people and give it to others.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2012-October-08, 09:41, said:

> And the idea that most Wall Streeters are solid, straight-ticket Democrats is laughable.

Really? I was speculating; you are asserting. Where's the data to back up your assertion? Connecticutt? Manhattan? (You might pick up Long Island...) You think there all the very wealthy Dems are hot to pay more taxes?

Red State Blue State by Andrew Gelman is the standard reference:

Here is a simple summary of some of his findings:

Quote

Attempting to explain 'why Americans vote the way they do,' Gelman and a group of fellow political scientists crunch numbers and draw graphs, arriving at a picture that refutes the influential one drawn by Thomas Frank, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, of poor red-staters voting Republican against their economic interests. Instead, Gelman persuasively argues, the poor in both red states and blue still mostly vote Democratic, and the rich, nationally speaking, overwhelmingly vote Republican.
(Leo Carey The New Yorker )

[awm]

If you accept that deficits (at least sometimes) matter and the federal government should do at least a little bit, then someone has to pay taxes.

The Democrats' position on taxes is that the wealthiest individuals and corporations have benefitted the most from our country and can most easily afford to pay, and thus that they should pay a larger percentage of their income in tax. Democrats tend to support proposals which reduce taxes for low and middle-income taxpayers; for example Obama put in a temporary payroll tax cut, has cut small business taxes some large number of times, and wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for incomes under 250K. Democrats object to tax structures where high incomes pay a lower percent in tax than low incomes (see the "Buffett rule") and generally see raising taxes on high incomes as a way to increase revenues and move gradually towards a balanced budget (for example, Obama used a tax on the wealthy to fund the Affordable Care Act, and wants to revert to Clinton-era tax rates on incomes over 250K).

The Republicans' position is that tax rates should be more egalitarian. They claim that higher taxes on the wealthy discourage success and hurt economic growth, as well as being fundamentally unfair. They want to reduce or eliminate the estate tax (part of Romney's plan), capital gains taxes (part of Paul Ryan's budget, but Romney has backed off on this probably due to the effect on his personal tax rates), and the federal income tax (Romney proposes a 20% rate cut). They have at times supported a flat tax (excluding capital gains, of course), or replacing the income tax entirely with a consumption tax. All of these would have the effect of decreasing the tax rate paid by the highest incomes while having much less benefit (or even raising taxes, in the last two cases) on lower incomes. In fact, Republicans have complained repeatedly about the "lucky duckies" (mostly very low income) who pay no federal income tax (see Romney's much-maligned 47% remarks for a recent example, but there are many such statements by party leaders). Republicans also opposed Obama's payroll tax cut (which helps mostly low-income working people) despite their generally being the "party of lower taxes."

One point worth mentioning is that it can't "always be right to cut taxes" or "always be right to raise taxes on high incomes." There must be a balancing point somewhere, and it's perfectly sensible for Democrats to say that a 90% tax rate on top incomes (as it was prior to Kennedy's tax cuts) was ridiculous and that lowering that rate was a good idea, whereas a 40% tax rate on high incomes (as it was in the Clinton years) is perfectly reasonable and lowering it to 35% was a bad idea. I do wonder at which rates (if any) current Republican leadership would draw the line and say that raising taxes is reasonable.

[kenberg]

If the Republican Party has any plans to make me rich, I missed the press release.

[mike777]

It would seem their current plan is to cut rates but redefine earned and taxable income. In other words cut taxes but change what they tax. Unclear why.

What I dont hear is they want to cut taxes so the people who make the money get to keep more of it and the government gets less of it. The reason being is the belief those people will make better decisions than the govt can ever make.

I suppose one counter argument is we tried that and see the mess we are in. Lets give govt the chance now.

[Bbradley62]

 kenberg, on 2012-October-07, 09:08, said:

A variant: Do we really want to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible? My wife does some free tutoring. Should she pay taxes on the money she could have charged? I really don't get this.

Yes, I'd like to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible. If you want to make charitable contributions, you should do so with your post-tax dollars.

Since we are talking about the income tax code, if your wife has no income (monetary or otherwise) from her tutoring, there is no income tax.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-October-09, 00:12

[kenberg]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-October-08, 10:34, said:

Yes, I'd like to change the tax code to make charitable contributions no longer deductible. If you want to make charitable contributions, you should do so with your own post-tax dollars.

i will give it further thought. Still, it's my view that if Romney used existing tax laws to deduct all of his charitable giving from his gross income, I believe there would be very few voters, zero is my guess, who would say "I was going to vote for Romney but I was just shocked to see him reduce his income tax by giving large sums to charity, so now I am going to vote for Obama". I just cannot visualize this hypothetical voter.

I suppose, on reflection, I do have concerns about the government saying "If you give money here, that's a charity but if you give money there, that's not a charity". It's true that just saying pay your taxes first then give your money to whomever you wish solves that problem. Actually I have thought the same way about property taxes and churches. Property is property, and property gets taxed. Whether the usage of that property qualifies it as being a church or not is not for the government to say.

[lalldonn]

 kenberg, on 2012-October-08, 11:22, said:

Still, it's my view that if Romney used existing tax laws to deduct all of his charitable giving from his gross income, I believe there would be very few voters, zero is my guess, who would say "I was going to vote for Romney but I was just shocked to see him reduce his income tax by giving large sums to charity, so now I am going to vote for Obama". I just cannot visualize this hypothetical voter.

But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously.

[mike777]

There is the other issue beside charitable deductions and that is making the person who receives income in the form of charity or a gift pays the tax. yes, you can have income but no money.

This is just another example of redefining taxable or earned income.

[mike777]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-08, 11:41, said:

But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously.

Good point.


How much is fair and just that Poster A takes from Poster B and gives to Poster C?
It seems that is a good point and issue in this election.


Good example of what is a fair and just amount of money, whether Romney should get to keep the money and decide where it goes or raise taxes so the govt decides.

[luke warm]

yeah, the usa could stop charitable deductions i guess... it depends on how much one values such donations, because they'd sure drop way the hell off

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2012-October-08, 13:55, said:

yeah, the usa could stop charitable deductions i guess... it depends on how much one values such donations, because they'd sure drop way the hell off

I suspect that there will be resistance to eliminating any of the deductions and exemptions that taxpayers enjoy today. Yet even if Romney eliminates 100% of the deductions currently available, that will not in itself pay for a 20% across the board tax cut.

[kenberg]

 lalldonn, on 2012-October-08, 11:41, said:

But if Romney took more charitable deductions and paid (say) 12% of his income in taxes instead of 14%, it would give more fuel to the Democratic argument that both he, and wealthy people in general, don't pay a large enough percentage of their income in taxes. That could potentially sway some voters, even subconsciously.

I guess some would feel that way, but if he made, say, 100 million, gave half of it away, and paid, say, $10m in taxes, I think I would see it as having $40m left after charity and taxes. That's just me, I guess. Some would say he got away with only paying 10% in taxes. I would say he gave away 50% to charity and paid 20% on what was left. At any rate, I would definitely see it as a whole different thing from someone who made $100m, somehow managed to pay only $10m in taxes, and kept the other $90 m for himself. In this latter case, I would not blame him heavily if his maneuvers were within the law, but I would certainly suggest revisiting the law. In the first case scenario I would also feel that only $10m tax on $50m is still something we might want to address, but I wouldn't worry much about the tsaxable $100m being reduced to $50m because he gave heavily to charity.

Something we can all have an opinion on, I don't really see a way of changing anyone's mind, except I do see some issue with having the government decide what qualifies as a charity and what doesn't.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-October-08, 14:18, said:

I suspect that there will be resistance to eliminating any of the deductions and exemptions that taxpayers enjoy today. Yet even if Romney eliminates 100% of the deductions currently available, that will not in itself pay for a 20% across the board tax cut.

compute that again, this time w/ the economy growing @ 3% rather than 1.3%... then try it @ 4%, up to 6% or so

[mike777]

 luke warm, on 2012-October-08, 15:34, said:

compute that again, this time w/ the economy growing @ 3% rather than 1.3%... then try it @ 4%, up to 6% or so

Jimmy, is your theory that if you reduce taxrates 20% and reduce regulations but broaden the definition of taxable income this will somehow lead to an increase in GDP?

Would you still advocate this even if it might not affect GDP?

[luke warm]

it's my theory that if 3+M jobs a year is created, *that* will increase gdp... also, 3+M jobs (imo) can't be created unless the economic picture improves for the businesses that create them, meaning that tax/regulation policies must make it more attractive for businesses to start getting off some of their money... none of these things are stand-alone

on a sidenote, a new battleground poll shows romney now has a 16% lead in independents, and a 13% lead in enthusiasm