News Donald Trump as president - is he serious?

[BobG]

People like to be entertained - he's making the process interesting - again - IMO.

His TV show, The Apprentice, took in $350,000 for a 30-second advertising spot. If he televises weekly cabinet meetings with 18 minutes worth of commercials in an hour, the government will be able to take in an extra $655 million a year in revenue.

And I have to admit - that might be very entertaining, or terrifying. Either way, it would draw an audience.

 

[Dale]

At some point, we must actually collect revenue from the people and businesses that benefit most from our system of government.

Assuming that by "people and businesses that benefit most" you mean "people with high incomes" then we are already doing that. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 3% of the taxes.

 

[turbo]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Time to stop.

According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in05tr.xls) in 2007, the top 1% paid over 40% of the income taxes. (40.42%)

 

[Pengwuino]

Finger on the pulse? Wow, from what I see, Tea Party <> The Center.

What kinda weird math language are you using?

 

[jhae2.718]

<> is \ne in several programming languages...

 

[lisab]

<> is \ne in several programming languages...

True that.

 

[KingNothing]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 3% of the taxes.

Errmmm...I hate when people say something like this, because it's just playing with numbers. It doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful. It doesn't tell you whether or not that top 10% is being taxed at a higher rate or lower rate because it doesn't tell you how much wealth the top 10% has.

In some countries, where the top 10% have 95% of the wealth, this same statement would mean they are being under-taxed.

 

[Dale]

Errmmm...I hate when people say something like this, because it's just playing with numbers. It doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful. It doesn't tell you whether or not that top 10% is being taxed at a higher rate or lower rate because it doesn't tell you how much wealth the top 10% has.

As turbo-1 and Vanadium50 pointed out, they are paying their fair share by that measure too (in the US).

 

[Proton Soup]

Interesting article from CNN this morning. I didn't realize that he has 'considered' a run for president so many times.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/19/byron.trump.president/index.html"

yeah, I'm sure that's all it is. it's just funny that i don't remember him ever doing it before. perhaps it's just that it's being taken seriously on this board that i even notice him now.

 

[Pengwuino]

Errmmm...I hate when people say something like this, because it's just playing with numbers. It doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful. It doesn't tell you whether or not that top 10% is being taxed at a higher rate or lower rate because it doesn't tell you how much wealth the top 10% has.

In some countries, where the top 10% have 95% of the wealth, this same statement would mean they are being under-taxed.

The whole idea is non-sense though. 20% of the country has negative amounts of wealth. What justification is there to peg taxation to how much wealth you have?

People need to stop using the word "fair" to describe the idea that we need to tax rich people for as much as we can until they leave the country. Be honest and just say we need a system that is sustainable, not "fair".

 

[russ_watters]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Besides what Vanadium said, are you aware that wealth and income are not the same thing?

The biggest revenue problem isn't on the top end, it's in the mid to bottom end: in the 47% of the population that pay no federal income tax. That's ridiculous.

 

[CAC1001]

One thing I am confused on, and I am not saying this to justify tax increases (as I think with any additional revenue, the government would just use it as an excuse not to cut spending and instead keep going as is), but this just confuses me:

On the one hand, you hear how the top 1% pay 40% of total federal income taxes, the top 10% pay something like 70% I think (?), and then there's like 40 - 50% of the population with no federal income tax liability.

But then if Democrats say we should tax the top 1% or top 10% a little more, the criticism leveled immediately is that there is no way that this would raise anywhere near the revenue needed to help close the budget deficit, and is just class warfare on the part of the Left.

My question is, if the top 1% pay 40%, and the top 10% even more, then wouldn't raising taxes on them a little bit bring in a large chunk of additional revenue...?

I can understand that raising capital gains taxes, at least in the short-term, would likely reduce revenues, as in the short term, raising capital gains taxes tends to reduce revenues (and lowering them in the short-term tends to increase revenue). I can also understand that you don't want to hike taxes on the top earners (large tax increase) because they'll either stop working as hard or much, or if truly rich, will hide their money or leave the country. For example some states where the top 1% account for about 50% of revenue have a problem in that if they raise the taxes on said top 1%, the wealthy flee the state.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The biggest revenue problem isn't on the top end, it's in the mid to bottom end: in the 47% of the population that pay no federal income tax. That's ridiculous.

While I am in favor of tax hikes across the board (lower and lower-middle class families will just see their wages rise to compensate, according to the iron law of wages), I should point out that judging the ridiculousness of this depends on the income distribution.

I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out the marginal utility of a dollar- if food and shelter cost 10 units, and I make 10 units, a tax of even a fraction of a unit could leave me potentially hungry for periods of time. Similarly, if I make 1000 units, I can weather the tax easily. The idea of a progressive tax system is that taxing the rich doesn't harm their utility as much as taxing the poor. The richest 1% currently make something like 20% of the nations income. Only if we ignore marginal utility of a dollar can we assume they should pay 20% of the tax. Its also the problem with a flat tax.

I don't have data at hand, but does anyone know what percentage the bottom half takes in income? I haven't thought about this greatly, but it seems unlikely that there is a reasonable definition of utility that won't have the top 1% paying at least half the taxes if they are taking in 20% or better of the income.

Also, lest anyone claim unfairness- the rich in general use lots more infrastructure than the poor. If I run a company that employs highly educated workers, I gain much more from the US educational system than if I manage a fast food restaurant. Managing a fast food restaurant, I gain much more than my worker from the educational system. Think of how much more use the Walton family gets out of the US highway system than the average taxpayer.

 

[Pengwuino]

My question is, if the top 1% pay 40%, and the top 10% even more, then wouldn't raising taxes on them a little bit bring in a large chunk of additional revenue...?

I can understand that raising capital gains taxes, at least in the short-term, would likely reduce revenues, as in the short term, raising capital gains taxes tends to reduce revenues (and lowering them in the short-term tends to increase revenue). I can also understand that you don't want to hike taxes on the top earners (large tax increase) because they'll either stop working as hard or much, or if truly rich, will hide their money or leave the country. For example some states where the top 1% account for about 50% of revenue have a problem in that if they raise the taxes on said top 1%, the wealthy flee the state.

Vanadium has pointed out in various threads that that deficit compared to how much taxes are brought is so ridiculously screwed up, you'd have to increases the top tax bracket to something ridiculous like 150% to just break even. So yes, it will bring in more money, but the problem is that the system is fundamentally broken.

A quick look on wiki shows the 2010 budget was estimated to be $3.5T with revenue estimated at $2.4T which leaves a $1.1T deficit. This year is looking to be way worse. It's a fundamental problem, you can't have deficits that are comparable to your actual revenue stream.

In my opinion, this entire political debate is meaningless. People argue about a billion here and a billion there and a 5% increase here... but the problem is fundamental.

 

[CAC1001]

While I am in favor of tax hikes across the board (lower and lower-middle class families will just see their wages rise to compensate, according to the iron law of wages),

Is the iron law of wages iron solid? I don't know if raising taxes on everyone means wages will rise to compensate, especially right now.

I should point out that judging the ridiculousness of this depends on the income distribution.

I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out the marginal utility of a dollar- if food and shelter cost 10 units, and I make 10 units, a tax of even a fraction of a unit could leave me potentially hungry for periods of time. Similarly, if I make 1000 units, I can weather the tax easily. The idea of a progressive tax system is that taxing the rich doesn't harm their utility as much as taxing the poor. The richest 1% currently make something like 20% of the nations income. Only if we ignore marginal utility of a dollar can we assume they should pay 20% of the tax. Its also the problem with a flat tax.

I don't have data at hand, but does anyone know what percentage the bottom half takes in income? I haven't thought about this greatly, but it seems unlikely that there is a reasonable definition of utility that won't have the top 1% paying at least half the taxes if they are taking in 20% or better of the income.

Also, lest anyone claim unfairness- the rich in general use lots more infrastructure than the poor. If I run a company that employs highly educated workers, I gain much more from the US educational system than if I manage a fast food restaurant. Managing a fast food restaurant, I gain much more than my worker from the educational system. Think of how much more use the Walton family gets out of the US highway system than the average taxpayer.[/QUOTE]

Taxing higher-income folk more than lower-income folk is fine, it's just that you want high-ER taxes on the high income earners, not literally high taxes on them. And you do not want the government justifying the higher taxes in the name of wealth redistribution, you want it for the reasons you cited above.

 

[Dale]

Taxing higher-income folk more than lower-income folk is fine, it's just that you want high-ER taxes on the high income earners, not literally high taxes on them. And you do not want the government justifying the higher taxes in the name of wealth redistribution, you want it for the reasons you cited above.

Well said.

My question is, if the top 1% pay 40%, and the top 10% even more, then wouldn't raising taxes on them a little bit bring in a large chunk of additional revenue...?

If the goal is to raise revenue then the tax code needs to be structured to increase GDP. Over the past 60 years whether the top tax bracket is more than 90% or less than 30% the revenue has been about 20% of GDP (see http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/). Increasing the tax rates does not increase revenue, only increasing the GDP.

Of course, the usual goal of "tax the rich" proponents is not to increase revenue, but to punish economic success.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't have data at hand, but does anyone know what percentage the bottom half takes in income? I haven't thought about this greatly, but it seems unlikely that there is a reasonable definition of utility that won't have the top 1% paying at least half the taxes if they are taking in 20% or better of the income.

The bottom 50% collects 12.25% of the income (AGI) and pays 2.89% of the income tax. (2007 numbers from the IRS).

The IRS provides rather a lot of aggregate data. I recommend looking at it.

 

[russ_watters]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

When will you start advocating higher taxes on the 44% of the population that pays no federal income tax?

 

[WhoWee]

While I am in favor of tax hikes across the board (lower and lower-middle class families will just see their wages rise to compensate, according to the iron law of wages), I should point out that judging the ridiculousness of this depends on the income distribution.

I'm also surprised that no one has pointed out the marginal utility of a dollar- if food and shelter cost 10 units, and I make 10 units, a tax of even a fraction of a unit could leave me potentially hungry for periods of time. Similarly, if I make 1000 units, I can weather the tax easily. The idea of a progressive tax system is that taxing the rich doesn't harm their utility as much as taxing the poor. The richest 1% currently make something like 20% of the nations income. Only if we ignore marginal utility of a dollar can we assume they should pay 20% of the tax. Its also the problem with a flat tax.

I don't have data at hand, but does anyone know what percentage the bottom half takes in income? I haven't thought about this greatly, but it seems unlikely that there is a reasonable definition of utility that won't have the top 1% paying at least half the taxes if they are taking in 20% or better of the income.

Also, lest anyone claim unfairness- the rich in general use lots more infrastructure than the poor. If I run a company that employs highly educated workers, I gain much more from the US educational system than if I manage a fast food restaurant. Managing a fast food restaurant, I gain much more than my worker from the educational system. Think of how much more use the Walton family gets out of the US highway system than the average taxpayer.

Isn't the highway system used by the "average taxpayer" to drive to WalMart and isn't the highway system used to distribute the goods and services to these locations - for the benefit of the public? As for WalMart, don't they pay fuel taxes to use the highway system?

I wonder how much Donald Trump has paid to pull permits and maintain compliance with codes in his career?

 

[Femme_physics]

He's just boosting ratings for The Apprentice. If he was serious about running, he would probably cut out the birther bull that makes him appear more on TV and makes him the talk of the day. Man knows how to make money.

 

[AlephZero]

I wonder how much Donald Trump has paid to pull permits and maintain compliance with codes in his career?

Whatever it takes, I guess. Even criminals have their price...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...-golf-resort-in-the-dog-house-86908-23071509/

 

[WhoWee]

Whatever it takes, I guess. Even criminals have their price...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...-golf-resort-in-the-dog-house-86908-23071509/

I'm talking about building and zoning permits along with consultants, engineering, architects, and mandated construction modifications. Trump is someone who lives in a highly regulated business world.

 

[BobG]

This series of tables should be a sticky since numbers about how much money in taxes the top x pct pay gets tossed out here so often:

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Table 5 shows percentage of total adjusted gross income earned by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc.
Table 6 shows percentage of federal income tax paid by each group.
Tables 1 & 8 show percent of AGI paid by each group and these are the only important tables when it comes to fairness.
Table 1 show the total AGI for each group and this is the only important table when talking about getting the most dollars for ticking off the fewest number of people. (A 1% increase on the top 10% nets $38.6 billion dollars while a 1% increase on the bottom 50% nets only $10.7 billion dollars.)

One thing to note: this shows adjusted gross income, which is not the same as how much a person earns. For example, I earn almost enough to fall in the top 10% if all my income were counted as AGI, but my AGI barely puts me in the top 25% (which is why I limited my 1% increase to the top 10%). Granted, I will pay taxes on some of that difference later in life, but I may not even be in the top 25% when I pay those taxes.

It would take quite a bit of effort to figure out how much each group is paying out of their total unadjusted income (especially for deferred income where taxes will be paid later), but the important point is that those tax rates aren't quite as high as they look.

 

[AlephZero]

I'm talking about building and zoning permits along with consultants, engineering, architects, and mandated construction modifications. Trump is someone who lives in a highly regulated business world.

Well, in the UK we don't call them "zoning permits" and "mandated construction modifications", but that's exactly what the story is about.

After getting his own golf course plan approved by somewhat murky methods (it was originally turned down, until he started waving money under people's noses) Trump thinks his scheme is so wonderful that nobody living nearby should be allowed to do anything, unless he personally approves of it.

The opinions of the people living there before he decided to "improve" their lives for ever count for nothing in his view of the world. Except he's just discivered one of them isn't the sort of person who will just roll over.

I wonder how much "protection money" it will cost Trump to shut him up. £1m a year? £10m? We are talking about buying off a big-time (ex)-criminal here...

 

[WhoWee]

Well, in the UK we don't call them "zoning permits" and "mandated construction modifications", but that's exactly what the story is about.

After getting his own golf course plan approved by somewhat murky methods (it was originally turned down, until he started waving money under people's noses) Trump thinks his scheme is so wonderful that nobody living nearby should be allowed to do anything, unless he personally approves of it.

The opinions of the people living there before he decided to "improve" their lives for ever count for nothing in his view of the world. Except he's just discivered one of them isn't the sort of person who will just roll over.

I wonder how much "protection money" it will cost Trump to shut him up. £1m a year? £10m? We are talking about buying off a big-time (ex)-criminal here...

Protection money (?) - is the UK a law-less land now?

 

[WhoWee]

Anyone think this interview will irk the "left?

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/...e/2011/04/20/id/393452?s=al&promo_code=C1E3-1

"“Well, first, I do have respect for Donald Trump and for his candidness — I think people are craving that today, in the world of political speak . . . coming out of the White House,” Palin said. “And the confusing messages that come from so many of our politicos — we appreciate that Donald Trump is so candid.

“Donald Trump is the one being really treated unfairly — I would say though, in the press —when they are hammering him about the one issue that he has brought up and not been shy about, and that’s the birth certificate,” she continued. “He’s merely answering reporters’ questions about his view on the birth certificate — and then reporters turn that around and [say]: ‘That’s all he’s got — he’s always running on a birth certificate issue,’ when that’s not the case.

“Bottom line [is] that President Obama is so far over his head — he has gotten us on the road to bankruptcy, and insolvency, and a less secure nation,” Palin said. “And Trump, and so many of us, want to do something about that.”

Palin noted candidates have control of their messages and “you don't have to give the time of day to those who are so obviously biased.”

“I was thinking back on some of those interviews that Obama had given back when he was a candidate,” she said. “The inconsistencies that he spewed back then, and reporters didn’t follow up. Certainly now — he as our president — he needs to be asked these tough questions.”"

I wonder if she agrees with this opinion?
http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/...on/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104768

"Trump: Obama 'worst president ever'"

 

[drankin]

IMO, our country takes in an obscene amount of tax revenue already. I don't believe the solution is more taxes. The solution is less spending and spending with greater efficiency.

When we talk about taxing the wealthy more is "fair", it's only fair in the sense that they would be screwed more than the rest of us because they have more to be screwed out of. I say we work on not getting screwed in the first place.

 

[BobG]

IMO, our country takes in an obscene amount of tax revenue already. I don't believe the solution is more taxes. The solution is less spending and spending with greater efficiency.

When we talk about taxing the wealthy more is "fair", it's only fair in the sense that they would be screwed more than the rest of us because they have more to be screwed out of. I say we work on not getting screwed in the first place.

If "fair" comes into play, we'll default on the national debt. Why should people just entering the work force pay interest on a debt they had no part in creating? It becomes a problem somewhat similar to Social Security (except for the Social Security problem, you have a bunch of people that have already paid in wanting their money and a bunch of people saying that's your tough luck because we don't want to pay to support you in your retirement).

"Fair" as a solution went out the window quite some time ago.

Unless you use the alternative version of "fair" which is cut taxes while providing more services. At least that version makes everyone happy.

One popular catchphrase is, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Well, actually, we have both.

 

[pergradus]

The government runs a lot more like a business than you'd think.

 

[Al68]

But then if Democrats say we should tax the top 1% or top 10% a little more, the criticism leveled immediately is that there is no way that this would raise anywhere near the revenue needed to help close the budget deficit, and is just class warfare on the part of the Left.

This is partly due to the fact that Democrats talk about raising the taxes on "millionaires and billionaires", while none of their actual proposals apply to just "millionaires and billionaires". They don't and won't offer a proposal that raises taxes only on the "super-rich" because it would expose the truth that the amount of money just wouldn't amount to much, at least not in government terms, because although each of those taxpayers would pay a lot, there just aren't many of them.

Their actual proposals get the bulk of their quoted revenue increases from people who are not the "super-rich" they claim to be targeting, typically in the $200K to $800K range, because although each one makes less money, there are far, far more of them. Even then, historically, actual revenues never match their quotes because they use quotes based on the silly assumption that higher tax rates have no negative effect on the tax base.

That assumption is especially true about taxes imposed on incomes in the $200K to $800K range, because they are typically small business owners whose tax bill is at the expense of growth and jobs. And Democrats' tax increase plans invariably lump these taxpayers in with those who make far more, then quote the numbers for the group, and use numbers that purposely ignore the negative effect on the tax base.

 

[Al68]

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned in this thread: I want to see the birth certificate for that thing on Trump's head!

 

[KingNothing]

Why are people referring to the top, bottom, and middle groups of 'wealth'? Since when has there been a "wealth tax"? Last I checked, there was only an income tax.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Their actual proposals get the bulk of their quoted revenue increases from people who are not the "super-rich" they claim to be targeting, typically in the $200K to $800K range, because although each one makes less money, there are far, far more of them.

You do realize that 200k means you make more than 97% of US households? Do you think of the top 3% as rich? I generally do. If you make 800k a year, you are doing better than more than 99% of America, which I would classify as super-rich, though I guess you can make a judgement call.

Also, if you make 800k a year, you are almost certainly a millionaire if you have any kind of savings/investment discipline at all.

Even then, historically, actual revenues never match their quotes because they use quotes based on the silly assumption that higher tax rates have no negative effect on the tax base.

These secondary effects ARE included in CBO estimates. Generally, revenues stay near projections (when those projections are reasonable. When Reagan's supply-siders predicted cutting spending would magically raise revenues, that didn't work out, not surprisingly), but spending doesn't because congress today has no control over what congress tomorrow decides to do with the money.

That assumption is especially true about taxes imposed on incomes in the $200K to $800K range, because they are typically small business owners whose tax bill is at the expense of growth and jobs.

What now? Small business owners typically report between 35k-65k, not 200k-800k. Looking at IRS data, the typical 200k-800k earner is a (highly) successful professional (highly skilled medical specialists, successful lawyers ,entertainers, etc). NOT, typically, a small business owner. Some very successful business owners might get into this range, but its an absurdly small percentage.

 

[Al68]

You do realize that 200k means you make more than 97% of US households? Do you think of the top 3% as rich? I generally do. If you make 800k a year, you are doing better than more than 99% of America, which I would classify as super-rich, though I guess you can make a judgement call.

Also, if you make 800k a year, you are almost certainly a millionaire if you have any kind of savings/investment discipline at all.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I purposely used $800K as the top of the range because I do consider people above that to be "super-rich" or "millionaires and billionaires".

These secondary effects ARE included in CBO estimates. Generally, revenues stay near projections (when those projections are reasonable.

That's simply not true. CBO estimates are notoriously inaccurate.

When Reagan's supply-siders predicted cutting spending would magically raise revenues, that didn't work out, not surprisingly

You have a link to such a prediction? I think they predicted that lower tax rates would help the economy and increase revenues over time by increasing the tax base. I'd say that worked out just fine, considering that tax revenues doubled during the 80s, but there was nothing magical about it.

What now? Small business owners typically report between 35k-65k, not 200k-800k.

I was referring specifically to small business owners subject to the top tax rate, not small business owners in general. Was that not obvious?

Looking at IRS data, the typical 200k-800k earner is a (highly) successful professional (highly skilled medical specialists, successful lawyers ,entertainers, etc). NOT, typically, a small business owner. Some very successful business owners might get into this range, but its an absurdly small percentage.

I agree that many in that range are not small business owners, but far more are than an "absurdly small percentage". But the exact percentage is irrelevant to my point, anyway. My point was that most Americans don't think of people in that range when they hear the phrase "super-rich" or "the wealthiest of Americans". They think of people who make millions per year.

I think most Americans consider someone making $200K to be well-off, $800K to be rich, not super-rich.

 

[WhoWee]

What now? Small business owners typically report between 35k-65k, not 200k-800k. Looking at IRS data, the typical 200k-800k earner is a (highly) successful professional (highly skilled medical specialists, successful lawyers ,entertainers, etc). NOT, typically, a small business owner. Some very successful business owners might get into this range, but its an absurdly small percentage.

Professional practices are considered small businesses. This category would also include well established custom home builders, insurance offices, consultants, engineers, architects, car dealers, and landlords. The $35 - $65k average includes all of the micro businesses (including person to person direct marketing), start-ups (and failures), as well as franchises and mom/pop retailers - everyone that files a business return.

 

[mugaliens]

The government runs a lot more like a business than you'd think.

One that's failing miserably in the financial areas...

 

[WhoWee]

One that's failing miserably in the financial areas...

One of the criticisms of Trump is that he's filed Chapter 11. IMO - the Dems better be careful with that one. If anything, he's experienced in reorganizing debt, cutting waste, and getting back on track - not to mention brand building.

btw - if anyone is paying attention - the US debt needs reorganized and (Trump infers) the USA brand needs rebuilt.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Professional practices are considered small businesses. This category would also include well established custom home builders, insurance offices, consultants, engineers, architects, car dealers, and landlords. The $35 - $65k average includes all of the micro businesses (including person to person direct marketing), start-ups (and failures), as well as franchises and mom/pop retailers - everyone that files a business return.

I wasn't referring to professional small practices in my estimates of 200k+ earners. Lawyers, Doctors and Engineers in their own practice are in the 100k-150k a year range according to the BLS.

The doctors, for example, who DO make 200k+ generally are sub-specialists working for a hospital, not in practice for themselves. The lawyers in this range seem to mainly work for large firms. The marketing execs, CEOs, CFOs, etc- mostly large firms.

The point is, there aren't a lot of small business owners making 200k+. Near as I can tell, the most likely ways to get rich are a. inherit (still the best), and b. work for someone else.

 

[ParticleGrl]

CBO estimates are notoriously inaccurate.

They are as accurate as any other economic forecasts. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7680/11-09-EconForecast.pdf

You have a link to such a prediction? I think they predicted that lower tax rates would help the economy and increase revenues over time by increasing the tax base. I'd say that worked out just fine, considering that tax revenues doubled during the 80s, but there was nothing magical about it.

See page 695 of Principles of Economics for a discussion of the supply siders and their claims. Also, revenue doubled because in non-recession times GDP grows every year. Revenue more than doubled in the 50s, and the top marginal rate was 90%. The thing you have to look at are trends in revenue. How fast was revenue increasing before the cuts? How fast after?

My point was that most Americans don't think of people in that range when they hear the phrase "super-rich" or "the wealthiest of Americans". They think of people who make millions per year.

I think most Americans would say someone making $500k is super-rich. I think most would say someone making $300k is super-rich. 200k might be the dividing line between rich and super-rich, i.e. you might find some people who say 200k places you at just rich.

But most Americans don't really have a good idea of the income or wealth distributions in our country. I think if you asked "if you make more than 97% of Americans, are you super rich?" most would say yes.

 

[Dale]

But most Americans don't really have a good idea of the income or wealth distributions in our country. I think if you asked "if you make more than 97% of Americans, are you super rich?" most would say yes.

Then poor should just ask their super-rich friends for help. Since 3% of the population is super-rich almost everyone should have a super-rich friend or two.

 

[WhoWee]

I wasn't referring to professional small practices in my estimates of 200k+ earners. Lawyers, Doctors and Engineers in their own practice are in the 100k-150k a year range according to the BLS.

The doctors, for example, who DO make 200k+ generally are sub-specialists working for a hospital, not in practice for themselves. The lawyers in this range seem to mainly work for large firms. The marketing execs, CEOs, CFOs, etc- mostly large firms.

The point is, there aren't a lot of small business owners making 200k+. Near as I can tell, the most likely ways to get rich are a. inherit (still the best), and b. work for someone else.

The real question (IMO) is this - when deductions are eliminated - how many people will move UP into the $250k bracket?

 

[turbo]

Bush's tax cuts for the top few percent affected me, but I never really noticed. I worked for a low base salary and got a yearly incentive pay bonus based on the performance of my division. Frankly, I doubt that anybody in the over $200K/yr bracket would notice a modest increase in the marginal rate. If they do, they are people who are spending all that they make and have to cut back on expenditures. Too bad. What's wrong with paying your fair share and living within your means? Poorer taxpayers have to do it, or suffer consequences, including poor credit rating, ruinous interest rates, loss of home, etc.

Anyway, back on topic. Trump is not serious. He is a media-hog and every time he can make a splash, it gives him leverage with a gullible demographic that he'd like to skin. He wants to be president less than Palin wanted to remain governor of Alaska. As soon as her publicity flacks started fluffing her credentials as an author (really?) and a public speaker (really?), she was looking at some really big short-term paydays that dwarfed her salary as governor. Bye-bye. Trump is probably more addicted to pay-days and even less concerned with the well-being of this country than Palin is.

 

[Vanadium 50]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

For almost 49 hours.

Frankly, I doubt that anybody in the over $200K/yr bracket would notice a modest increase in the marginal rate... What's wrong with paying your fair share and living within your means? Poorer taxpayers have to do it, or suffer consequences

It's interesting how the wealthy's "fair share" moved up in the last two days. Two days ago, you argued 36% was fair. Today, you are arguing that 40% is too low. If I were in the category of the "wealthy", I would be wondering where it will stop? If it went to 50% would there be calls to make it 75%? If it were 75% would there be a cry for 90%?

 

[russ_watters]

I'd also like to hear an explanation of what quantity of wealth has to do with taxation. Turbo-1, are you suggesting that we tax people based on net worth instead of income? How exactly would this work?

 

[Char. Limit]

If you're going to argue about that stuff could you find a different thread for it, please?

 

[russ_watters]

Poorer taxpayers have to do it, or suffer consequences, including poor credit rating, ruinous interest rates, loss of home, etc.

?

1. The "poorer" taxpayers you are referring to are the upper middle class. People in the lower middle class and below do not pay federal income tax - that's currently about 45% of the population.
2. When rich people don't pay taxes, they also suffer the same consequences. So what is your point?

 

[Char. Limit]

Apparently the answer to that is no...

 

[CAC1001]

You do realize that 200k means you make more than 97% of US households? Do you think of the top 3% as rich? I generally do.

I don't. Making 200K a year is nowhere even remotely close to being "rich."

If you make 800k a year, you are doing better than more than 99% of America, which I would classify as super-rich, though I guess you can make a judgement call.

$800K a year "barely" might qualify someone as rich. It would more likely be "extremely well-off."

I define it in the following way:

There's lower-rich, with net worths around $1-$10 million. A person making $800k a year could fall into this category.

There's middle-rich, with net worths around $10-$100 million.

And then there's super-rich, which is $100 million and above.

When you study wealthy people, you'll find that in the world of wealth, even $100 million barely gets you in the door. "Super-rich" really could probably be defined as those with net worths of $500 million and up.

When Reagan's supply-siders predicted cutting spending would magically raise revenues, that didn't work out, not surprisingly),

There was nothing "magical" to it, the idea is that if taxes are too restrictively high, then reducing them can incentivize enough economic growth to create more revenue. And yes, it did workout, because in the mid-1980s, the deficit began shrinking.

What has become a Republican talking point is the idea that every time you lower taxes, you'll increase revenues. That is not true. After a certain point, lowering taxes lowers revenues, and raising them increases revenues.

It also can depend on how it's done, for example if you have higher rates with lots of loopholes, which you then change to lower rates while closing some loopholes (that was part of some of the major Reagan tax cuts).

Near as I can tell, the most likely ways to get rich are a. inherit (still the best), and b. work for someone else.

The best way to get rich is to start your own business. Inherited wealth accounts for only a fraction of most of the wealth generated today. Working for someone else is usually the worst way to become rich. You can earn a high income working for someone else, but otherwise, you are not going to become rich while working for someone else, aside from maybe working on Wall Street at one of those big firms or at a big corporation, and even then, it tends to take many years and you are an old person by then. And you have to put up with a lot of office and corporate politics in the process as well.

 

[CAC1001]

See page 695 of Principles of Economics for a discussion of the supply siders and their claims.

Which "Principles of Economics" text? Which author? Because there are multiple books with that name.

Also, revenue doubled because in non-recession times GDP grows every year.

I'd say Reagan's tax cuts helped pull the economy out of the recession. Paul Volcker's increasing interest rates helped blow up the deficit, but was necessary to fix the inflation of the time. Reagan took a lot of heat politically for providing the support to Volcker to keep interest rates as high as he did for as long as he did as well, as Congress didn't like it.

Reagan's tax cuts helped lead to a lot of new money flowing into the stock and bond markets that had previously been tied up in tax shelters.

Revenue more than doubled in the 50s, and the top marginal rate was 90%. The thing you have to look at are trends in revenue. How fast was revenue increasing before the cuts? How fast after?

The top-rate in the 1950s applied to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of someone earning many millions of dollars a year. It did not apply to the inflation-adjusted equivalent of someone earning $200K a year.

Also, remember the 1950s was right after WWII, when most of America's economic competition was still rebuilding. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, adopted socialism outright to a good extent, which hamstrung their economy.

The U.S. in the 1950s also benefited from much of the infrastructure that had been created as part of the New Deal. What had previously been rural backwaters now had roads, bridges, airports, electricity, plumbing, etc...and thus became thriving economies.

Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System I would imagine also had a major impact on America's economic growth in the post-war years.