History US tax rate history - A return to the glory days

[OmCheeto]

Again? Seriously? The same kiddie-level transparent fraud I just pointed out?

You'll have to point out your kiddie-level transparent fraud. I think I missed it.

 

[Al68]

You'll have to point out your kiddie-level transparent fraud. I think I missed it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3316742&postcount=16".

 

[OmCheeto]

Perhaps Ivan should clarify the point of the thread?

Naw. Let's see if we can start from scratch and analyze what he was trying to say, without any hyperbole this time.

When considering the best path to US solvency,

He has identified a perceived problem. Excellent!

it might be useful to consider the tax rates that helped to build this country.

Back when Kennedy took office, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Today, it is 35%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

He has displayed some historical facts.

It appears to me that the incessant drive towards lower taxation, which imo has helped to bring the US to its financial knees, is unprecedented in the modern context.

He has stated an opinion. A simple one. One which I agree with.

Ok.

Next!

 

[ParticleGrl]

Aren't Government worker wages growing faster than the private sector? How fair is that?

They aren't. Skilled labor always makes less working for the government.

 

[WhoWee]

Naw. Let's see if we can start from scratch and analyze what he was trying to say, without any hyperbole this time.

He has identified a perceived problem. Excellent!

He has displayed some historical facts.

He has stated an opinion. A simple one. One which I agree with.

Ok.

Next!

Ivan must agree with you?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Question for those who think taxing the 'producers' is a terrible idea-

If we tax people making over a million, and use that money to fund low interest loans for start-up companies, could we grow the economy? How about a health-care fund for entrepreneurs so that people trying to start companies can have an easier time finding health insurance?

If we subsidize education with that money so that we have more productive workers, could we grow the economy?

If we use that money to invest in basic research, will we grow the economy?

There are plenty of things that the government spends money on that can grow GDP. There are plenty of things rich people do with money that do not (invest in other countries, for instance).

 

[WhoWee]

Question for those who think taxing the 'producers' is a terrible idea-

If we tax people making over a million, and use that money to fund low interest loans for start-up companies, could we grow the economy? How about a health-care fund for entrepreneurs so that people trying to start companies can have an easier time finding health insurance?

If we subsidize education with that money so that we have more productive workers, could we grow the economy?

If we use that money to invest in basic research, will we grow the economy?

There are plenty of things that the government spends money on that can grow GDP. There are plenty of things rich people do with money that do not (invest in other countries, for instance).

Would those start-ups be funded in the US - or would some of it need to help the economies of Egypt (for instance) - aren't they about to receive $1Billion in business start-up funds?

 

[Al68]

There are plenty of things that the government spends money on that can grow GDP. There are plenty of things rich people do with money that do not (invest in other countries, for instance).

That may have some truth in theory, but the exact opposite is much truer in the real world. In the real world, confiscating wealth from successful businesses to fund as-yet unsuccessful businesses is economic poison, to put it simply, not to mention that such action is outright and obvious theft.

 

[OmCheeto]

You'll have to point out your kiddie-level transparent fraud. I think I missed it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3316742&postcount=16".

Post #16

When people are so anti-tax, that they will not pay annually, for what they will pay daily for a latte, something is dreadfully wrong.

You mean "would be" dreadfully wrong, if such a thing were even remotely accurate? There is a profound and obvious difference between not wanting to increase taxes by $5 and not wanting to pay $5 in taxes, particularly when taxes should be lower, not higher.

Making that out to be people not wanting to pay "just $5" in taxes is fraudulent, at a level of transparency that most 9 year olds could see through.

"Gee, we know we've robbed you blind already, taking thousands from each one of you every year, but we waste it instead of building that bridge we need. So cough up another five bucks each year".

Post #16 doesn't even make sense.

Maybe if I break it down into little bits, and see if I can make sense of it, sentence by sentence.

Me: something is dreadfully wrong
Your response: something would be dreadfully wrong

analysis: you are wrong. people not willing to pay 2 cents a day for a bridge because they listen to people like you is ludicrous.

The rest or your commentary just a baseless rant as far as I can tell:

if such a thing were even remotely accurate?

It's accurate and common knowledge around here. You can trust the newspaper article I quoted earlier.

There is a profound and obvious difference between not wanting to increase taxes by $5 and not wanting to pay $5 in taxes

Please don't bother explaining that to me.

Making that out to be people not wanting to pay "just $5" in taxes is fraudulent, at a level of transparency that most 9 year olds could see through.

It is not fraudulent. It is a fact. Maybe I should try explaining this in 9 year old terms since you are constantly talking about them:.

Om; "You pay two cents a day for the rest of your life. Ok?"
Om; "For those two cents a day, you get to cross this bridge. Ok?"
Om; "On the other side of this bridge is candy. Ok?"
Om; "No bridge, no candy. Ok?"
9 year old: "I could swim, and keep my 2 cents!"
Om; "Right... Come back in 20 years in the dead of winter, and we'll talk about this again."​

particularly when taxes should be lower, not higher.

Yes, we already know that is your opinion. Can you tell us how low? I'd like a figure. I know you don't like giving out specifics, as that would violate the rules of speaking in "plain English". But I'd really like to know how low you think taxes should be.

"Gee, we know we've robbed you blind already, taking thousands from each one of you every year, but we waste it instead of building that bridge we need. So cough up another five bucks each year".

Robbed blind?
One of the lowest tax burdens in the industrialized world, and we're being robbed blind?

 

[ParticleGrl]

That may have some truth in theory, but the exact opposite is much truer in the real world. In the real world, confiscating wealth from successful businesses to fund as-yet unsuccessful businesses is economic poison, to put it simply, not to mention that such action is outright and obvious theft.

By the same logic you can prove that taxation is "obvious theft" you can prove that democracy is "obvious slavery." The only "moral" political system in such a world would be anarchy. Doesn't this suggest to you something is wrong with your concept of theft?

 

[OmCheeto]

That may have some truth in theory, but the exact opposite is much truer in the real world. In the real world, confiscating wealth from successful businesses to fund as-yet unsuccessful businesses is economic poison, to put it simply, not to mention that such action is outright and obvious theft.

Bolding mine.

Why is it obvious theft?
Don't nearly all nations on the planet collect taxes?
What do their governments do with their tax dollars that makes ours theft and theirs not?
Or is all taxation theft?
If it's all theft, then should we have an Arab Spring everywhere, overthrow all the governments, do away with all taxes, and plunge the world into anarchy?

 

[OmCheeto]

Ivan must agree with you?

Ivan doesn't have to agree with anything I've stated.
But I agree with his assessment.

... the incessant drive towards lower taxation, which imo has helped to bring the US to its financial knees, is unprecedented in the modern context.

Of course, America's financial problems go much deeper than simply taxation.
But I really wish I had the time to analyze how much debt we would be in if we had remained at the Clinton era tax levels.

Or would that also be bad if we weren't in so much debt? Seems we discussed this before.

Ah ha!

Thank you both, OmCheeto and mheslep; these graphs were helpful for me.

I still think we are our own worst enemy. Who can't afford an additional 3%?

Once there was concern that there would not be enough low-risk paper around if the US government paid down its debt. I don't think that's a problem at present.

...

bolding mine

A low-risk paper shortage? I probably should have asked him what that was all about.

 

[Al68]

Post #16Post #16 doesn't even make sense.

Maybe if I break it down into little bits, and see if I can make sense of it, sentence by sentence.

Me: something is dreadfully wrong
Your response: something would be dreadfully wrong

analysis: you are wrong. people not willing to pay 2 cents a day for a bridge because they listen to people like you is ludicrous.

Maybe it would help if I broke it down a little:

Let X = current taxes being paid. The actual amount of taxes those people are unwilling to pay is $(X+5), not $5. Claiming they are unwilling to pay "only" $5 instead of $(X+5) is fraudulent.

Why is it obvious theft?

Because the purpose of the confiscation of wealth I referred to was to give it to someone else, not because the money was owed as part of a legitimate debt.

Don't nearly all nations on the planet collect taxes?
What do their governments do with their tax dollars that makes ours theft and theirs not?

I never claimed that other governments didn't engage in theft.

Or is all taxation theft?

Nope. I'm against using taxation for the purpose of theft, I never said taxation was itself theft generally. Collecting on a bill for a debt that is owed to government for services performed by government for someone, such as national defense, fire protection, etc., is not theft. Confiscating money from someone for the purpose of giving it to someone else with no basis for the debt whatsoever is theft. And no, the fact that one person can afford to give while another person has needs is not a basis for a legitimate debt.

 

[OmCheeto]

By the same logic you can prove that taxation is "obvious theft" you can prove that democracy is "obvious slavery." The only "moral" political system in such a world would be anarchy. Doesn't this suggest to you something is wrong with your concept of theft?

Shhhh... Don't tell WhoWee, but you and I look to be somewhat in agreement also. I don't think he likes that. ps. Stop posting my words before I get a chance to. It makes it look like I'm looking over your shoulder. I swear to god I didn't.

 

[WhoWee]

Shhhh... Don't tell WhoWee, but you and I look to be somewhat in agreement also. I don't think he likes that. ps. Stop posting my words before I get a chance to. It makes it look like I'm looking over your shoulder. I swear to god I didn't.

 

[Al68]

By the same logic you can prove that taxation is "obvious theft" you can prove that democracy is "obvious slavery."

That depends on what is being decided democratically. If someone's time and labor, or how to use the product of someone's time and labor, is decided democratically, instead of as a free choice of the individual, it is obvious slavery, in the strict sense of the word. Of course, the U.S. was never instituted as a democracy in that sense of the word.

The only "moral" political system in such a world would be anarchy. Doesn't this suggest to you something is wrong with your concept of theft?

No, it suggests that you have grossly misconstrued my concept of theft. My concept of theft is the same as the dictionary definition: the use of force to take that which is not yours or owed to you. (Obviously I'm not using the legal definition of theft which would include the modifier "unlawful", since I'm referring to legalized theft).

It is easy to form a rational basis for a legitimate debt to pay for services rendered by government that benefits everyone (the rich more so than the poor), and cannot be performed privately as a practical matter, and collect taxes accordingly because the money is owed.

In other words, I don't oppose taxes because taxes are theft as some general rule. I oppose the use of taxation for the purpose of theft. Huge conceptual difference there.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Sure, I'll try again, but it seems pretty fruitless. I obviously wasn't using the word poverty to refer to the rich, before or after taxes. And you say I was twisting your words?

Then I guess I missed what you were saying in your post. How would I be trapping people in poverty by allowing them basic necessities so they could focus on education more and learning more (thus focus more on productivity), instead of focusing purely on food/clothing/shelter?

At first glance I saw it as me trapping the rich in poverty, guess I missed, my apologies, and this second edition is the only other way I can see that you meant your post. If I am wrong again, then please clarify.

Shhhh... Don't tell WhoWee, but you and I look to be somewhat in agreement also. I don't think he likes that. ps. Stop posting my words before I get a chance to. It makes it look like I'm looking over your shoulder. I swear to god I didn't.

Seems like you me and particle seem to be somewhat in agreement.

Just don't let anyone know I'm secretly a 0% tax-rate kind of guy >_>

 

[CAC1001]

And not taxing the rich, and allowing the wage gap to increase more hurts the economy as well - just as much, if not more - than putting a marginal increase in taxes on the rich and helping out millions located in the bottom percentages of the economy.

What makes you think the money being taken by force from one group is going to be used to "help" out those located in the bottom percentages of the economy though? Yes, some poverty programs are a help to people, but a great many just result in more poverty. Also, no one is saying not to tax the rich.

 

[OmCheeto]

Maybe it would help if I broke it down a little:

Let X = current taxes being paid. The actual amount of taxes those people are unwilling to pay is $(X+5), not $5. Claiming they are unwilling to pay "only" $5 instead of $(X+5) is fraudulent.

Thank you. That makes it much clearer. They were unwilling to pay $1005 when they are now willing to pay $1000.

Because the purpose of the confiscation of wealth I referred to was to give it to someone else, not because the money was owed as part of a legitimate debt.

I would call theft the confiscation of anything and keeping it for yourself. You have a funny definition of theft.

I never claimed that other governments didn't engage in theft.

Well, since you're not willing to pay taxes to build another space shuttle to get off this planet, I'd say you have a problem.

Nope. Collecting on a bill for a debt that is owed to government for services performed by government for someone, such as national defense, fire protection, etc., is not theft. Confiscating money from someone for the purpose of giving it to someone else with no basis for the debt whatsoever is theft. And no, the fact that one person can afford to give while another person has needs is not a basis for a legitimate debt.

services performed? That was a county tax measure that failed. I believe most of those taxes are dedicated to services.

 

[CAC1001]

with that $500,000 that you get from taxing one person who earns $1 million, you could help nearly 23 average sized families (4 people) every year maintain an exact poverty-level amount of money in their hands. I am not talking about taking 90% of the money from the rich and making it so everyone earns the exact same wage, I am talking about keeping people fed and clothed.

The problem is how does one do this in a way that makes the money spent on the people a social safety net as opposed to a welfare program that disincentivizes work. Although I do not think anyone should be taxed at up to 50%.

 

[Ryumast3r]

What makes you think the money being taken by force from one group is going to be used to "help" out those located in the bottom percentages of the economy though? Yes, some poverty programs are a help to people, but a great many just result in more poverty. Also, no one is saying not to tax the rich.

Not all money is being used to help those located in the bottom percentages, but a lot is going to be used to help out those people (education/welfare), or everyone in general relatively evenly (fire, police, roads, etc).

 

[Ryumast3r]

The problem is how does one do this in a way that makes the money spent on the people a social safety net as opposed to a welfare program that disincentivizes work. Although I do not think anyone should be taxed at up to 50%.

Agreed, I don't think tax rates should even be 50%, and also agreed that it's hard to find a program that doesn't disincentivize, and, as anyone can figure out, there's always going to be the bottom of the bottom people who will be poor/impoverished no matter what you do to help them. That is pretty much fact, they just used to die off before, and now they don't.



I think we have gone a little far away from the topic though.

 

[CAC1001]

Question for those who think taxing the 'producers' is a terrible idea-

IMO, taxing producers is fine, just not at excessive levels and not in the name of wealth redistribution because some bureaucrat thinks it is unfair that one guy is wealthy and another guy isn't.

If we subsidize education with that money so that we have more productive workers, could we grow the economy?

Maybe for some people, but we don't want to tax too highly; one of the reasons why American universities are among the elite is because they get a lot of money from private giving, which itself comes from entrepreneurship and wealth creation. European universities tend to have much less funding from the private-sector, and thus must rely a lot more on the government.

If we use that money to invest in basic research, will we grow the economy?

The defense budget has been a fantastic tool for doing just this.

There are plenty of things that the government spends money on that can grow GDP. There are plenty of things rich people do with money that do not (invest in other countries, for instance).

True, but one could also say the opposite, that there are plenty of things wealthy folk spend their money on that do good for society or grow the economy (investing in startups, charitable giving, etc...) and plenty of things that the government spends money on that either do nothing or have a negative impact.

 

[Al68]

Thank you. That makes it much clearer. They were unwilling to pay $1005 when they are now willing to pay $1000.

Are you just pretending to not comprehend my point? They may be willing to pay $1000, including the $5. Or they may be willing to pay $500, including the $5. Either way, it's fraudulent to say they don't want to pay $5, when they are in fact willing to pay far more.

I would call theft the confiscation of anything and keeping it for yourself. You have a funny definition of theft.

So if I take your car and give it to someone else, like my neighbor who needs one, then it's not theft? It's only theft if I keep it for myself? Who's definition of theft is funny here?

 

[OmCheeto]

Are you just pretending to not comprehend my point? They may be willing to pay $1000, including the $5. Or they may be willing to pay $500, including the $5. Either way, it's fraudulent to say they don't want to pay $5, when they are in fact willing to pay far more.

I would never pretend to not comprehend your points. I actually find it very painful to argue with you. Your points are, simply pointless to me. You're above statement merely states that they are unwilling to pay $1005, but are willing to pay $1000. Which is exactly what I stated.

So if I take your car and give it to someone else, like my neighbor who needs one, then it's not theft? It's only theft if I keep it for myself? Who's definition of theft is funny here?

I see. Yes. But your neighbor doesn't do anything for me after you've given them my car. But when I voluntarily allow the government to steal my money, they give it to my neighbor, who does something for me. So I would say your definition of theft is still funnier.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It is easy to form a rational basis for a legitimate debt to pay for services rendered by government that benefits everyone (the rich more so than the poor), and cannot be performed privately as a practical matter, and collect taxes accordingly because the money is owed.

Then think of your tax bill this way- 100% of it is the fee for national defense, a service provided to you by the government at a profit.

It then uses its profits to "grow its business" (GDP growth = more to defend = more revenue) by spending money training employees (providing education to people), internal company improvements (roads, etc). As a shareholder, you get to vote for the executives that decide how the profits are spent.

Think of a tax increase as an increase in the cost of the service in order to pay to make more long-term investments in capital.

Now its not theft- its an increase in the cost of your defense bill.

 

[russ_watters]

I would never pretend to not comprehend your points. I actually find it very painful to argue with you. Your points are, simply pointless to me. You're above statement merely states that they are unwilling to pay $1005, but are willing to pay $1000. Which is exactly what I stated.

They aren't being asked to pay $1005 for the bridge, though. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that. You don't seem to be willing to accept that some people think the way Al does. But Al's a real person - he really does think that way. It really isn't necessarily true that the $5 tax still wouldn't have passed if it was packaged with a complementary $5 cut somewhere else.

Lets try this: Would you extend your logic to consider it reasonable for all taxes to be decided upon in the same way? By individual referendum?

 

[Vanadium 50]

As a shareholder, you get to vote for the executives that decide how the profits are spent.

Are you sure you want to go down that path? Because a natural consequence is that those who have "invested" more should get more votes than those who have invested less.

 

[Dale]

It appears to me that the incessant drive towards lower taxation, which imo has helped to bring the US to its financial knees, is unprecedented in the modern context.

Interesting how you neglect the simultaneous incessant drive towards higher spending and don't even mention that. It does show your bias.

Btw, the claim that we have driven towards lower taxation is patently false. We have driven towards lower tax rates which is vastly different from lower taxation. Taxation has increased steadily in inflation-adjusted dollars as the GDP has grown.

In fact, the top marginal tax rate has almost no impact on revenue as a fraction of GDP and seems to have little impact on the GDP. The best thing that could be done IMO is to simply to leave the tax system alone except perhaps once every 10 years or so. That would make it easier for people and businesses to plan, and removing that short-term uncertainty would encourage longer-term investment strategies.

 

[OmCheeto]

They aren't being asked to pay $1005 for the bridge, though. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

They were asked to pay $5 a year for the bridge. I don't know why everyone wants to make this more complicated than it really is.

You don't seem to be willing to accept that some people think the way Al does.

Unwilling to accept, or totally confused by the way they think? If there were some meat to their arguments, rather than post after post of ambiguity, it might be easier to understand the points of some people's arguments.

But Al's a real person - he really does think that way. It really isn't necessarily true that the $5 tax still wouldn't have passed if it was packaged with a complementary $5 cut somewhere else.

After the results of this vote, I doubt anyone will bother with another initiative. Until after the bridge collapses, or is shut down for only bicycle and pedestrian use, which is already being considered.

Lets try this: Would you extend your logic to consider it reasonable for all taxes to be decided upon in the same way? By individual referendum?

We do it all the time here. Though I'm not sure if there are laws that regulate what can and cannot be voted upon. It sure would have been interesting if we could have voted on whether or not to appropriate enough money to get us into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars though. How do you think the nation as a whole would have voted if they'd been told it would raise everyone's taxes by 5%?*

*Ballpark guess. May be too high or low by an order of magnitude. No time for maths. Late for work. Again...