# why

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sculptor, Sep 6, 2020.

1. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,703
If we kept the same tax brackets we had in 1955 - we sure would. In fact, it would work so well that I'd be more in favor of keeping today's tax brackets up to an income of $300,000 - and then switching to the 1955 tax brackets. (91% over 300,000 a year.) A city must provide X units of affordable housing per city, X being based on its population within a certain area near the city. Affordable meaning that someone who makes the minimum livable wage can afford it. Sure. But that's different than a living wage. In San Francisco, minimum living wage would be around$21 for a single person. For Jackson, MS it would be around $11. 2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 3. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 The point is, no one actually paid those high rates and they wouldn't today either. Subsidized government housing. Isn't that how inner cities developed in the first place. It didn't turn out so well. So, anyone should be able to live in any city. If I'm a dishwasher I should be able to live in Manhattan or downtown San Francisco? Why would anyone choose to live anywhere else? I'd probably pick San Diego (La Jolla) or someplace in Hawaii. Good luck Jackson Mississippi. 4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 18,703 People pay taxes today even though many think they are high. So the claim "no one will pay high taxes" is patently false. I can't tell if you are serious or not. I can live almost anywhere I want to. I don't want to live in either place. Most people are like me; they choose places other than those two. Seattle likes this. 6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 You're missing my point. In the 50's people didn't pay those high rates. There were so many exceptions that all it did was channel money into those exceptions. The percent of revenue paid in taxes (as a fact) was little different than it is today. The figures are in the 40 percent range in both cases (today and then). Regarding where to live. You can live where ever you want but you might chose not to live somewhere if the cost of living was too high. If you are a lower paid worker you shouldn't expect to live anywhere you want. Maybe you can buy a house in La Jolla but it's unreasonable to expect a dishwasher to be able to buy a house in La Jolla. It's no different with rentals. No one is going to build apartments given the land prices that a dish washer can afford in every location. Also effectively capping everyone's salary at$300,000 because that seems (to you) as enough for anyone's needs has unintended effects. It's not like under such a system most people will now make $300k and therefore most people will be very happy. It just means that it's hard to reward everyone in a big organization or anyone with rare skills. At a software company,for instance, the programming engineers may make that or close to that, so how do you pay their managers and their bosses and ultimately the CEO? Why would anyone start companies that pay people high salaries and then the person who owns the company pretty much makes the same amount? Who would become a surgeon? Last edited: Sep 24, 2020 8. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 18,703 Right. We have closed many of them. If we added that tax bracket, we would absolutely get more money into the treasury, and be able to slow down the unsustainable growth of the debt. I don't want people like you dictating where other people should live. ?? Right. A living wage does not allow you to buy a house in La Jolla or even rent a place there. It means you can rent an apartment in Santee (a somewhat seedy community 25 minutes away) and work at a Starbucks in La Jolla, and provide the rich people who live there with their coffee. 9. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 But you say the government should provide low cost housing in all cities so it does mean that. I (people like me) am not dictating where people can live. The cost of living in an area dictates that. If that isn't the case there is nothing to distinguish a great place from a "seedy" place. The claim that the economy was good in the 50's and people were paying 93% tax rates isn't accurate. They weren't paying that (as a fact). If they were the economy of the 50's wouldn't be something that you would be pointing out as great. Politics (rightly so in this case) would make sure that "no one" was paying those high rates today as well. The rates were lowered way before the 1980's. Kennedy was the first to lower them and then Reagan. 10. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 18,703 No, it doesn't, and I gave you an example of how it would explicitly not mean that. Of course it's not accurate that people were paying 93% of their income in taxes. That was the marginal tax rate; the tax rate for the highest bracket. You know what that means, right? They were paying closer to 70% of their income in taxes total. Today they are paying 28% of their income in taxes total. THAT is what we should fix. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html They were paying more than twice what they are paying now. And the economy was quite healthy. Today that is accurate. In the 1950's - not so much. #### Attached Files: • ###### incomeTaxes.png File size: 49.9 KB Views: 3 11. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 Yes, of course I know that we are talking about marginal rates. They weren't paying them however. 12. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 18,703 They were indeed. Did you look at the article? I even posted the relevant graphic. The rich were paying ~70% of their income in taxes. We did fine. 13. ### parmaleeperipatetic artisanValued Senior Member Messages: 3,015 ??? Why do you make these ridiculous claims? I mean, sure, some found ways of getting around it and not paying their full share, but most certainly did not. This is well--documented. From the NYT article: (Emphasis mine.) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html 14. ### iceauraValued Senior Member Messages: 30,562 Excellent. They made the necessary adjustments - such as investing in their businesses and communities rather than taking money in profits they would just have to fork over to the IRS anyway. That's what one hopes for, in setting tax policy. That might very well work again. It's certainly worth trying - our destination under Reaganomics is looking bleaker by the week. -- -- - That particular, specific claim has been made by several other posters here - and several not still here. It's been in common circulation for many years now - demonstrating its falsehood has never made the slightest difference to those who post it here. That makes it easier to identify its origin - common crude error is good evidence of common source. Making a list of the posters who made it will point one directly at the common source - if it is in fact puzzling to you. 15. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 It's ridiculous to suggest that a 93% marginal tax rate is why the 50's were prosperous without mentioning the pent-up demand from WWII and the fact that the industrial capacity of most other countries was destroyed during the war. Over time that was corrected. Kennedy lowered the marginal tax rates as well. Over time as a percentage of the GDP the percentage of taxes collected has remained pretty stable. You also know that even something like supply side economics works when reducing the marginal tax rates from a high level to a more moderate level. The fact that this trend does not still hold when lowering from moderate rates to even lower rates is beside the point. I'm pretty sure that you know that your Reagan boogey man is just that. Your real agenda isn't reforming capitalism. 16. ### iceauraValued Senior Member Messages: 30,562 The "pent-up demand" was created by US government deficit spending on welfare programs. That was deliberate - central planning at its most beneficial. If only it had included black and brown and red and yellow Americans - - - - what's done is done. Prosperity has many sources. Did you have a point? So you have no objection to restoring the tax policies of our greatest prosperity - great. That has never been demonstrated in a real economy, but I'm willing to agree that it is theoretically possible. Meantime, Reaganomics continues to cripple and suppress the US economy - because although theoretically workable in certain circumstances, in real life supply side economics has never been anything but an excuse for not taxing rich people. 17. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 If you continue to not get my point I'm have to assume that you are autistic and need everything to be literal or you don't get it. If you are autistic, no worries, just let me know. I know you have a thing for "taxing the rich" but they are being taxed and I don't see what your issue is. https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20...households in the,receive about 27% of income. 18. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 18,703 Agreed. It is similarly ridiculous to suggest that a 93% marginal tax rate (or even a 70% effective tax rate for the highest earners) will destroy the economy as we know it. It did not then; it will not today. 19. ### SeattleValued Senior Member Messages: 6,321 The rate would adversely affect it if it was seriously applied without "loopholes". Why is this even a question. Do you serious think that once someone made over$300k or whatever the number was that they would just give up the other millions if they were in that situation?

It just perverts the way money is used which is at best stupid and at worst socially harmful.

20. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,703
You are now discarding reality in favor of a made up fantasy that supports your point. I will let you play on your own with that.

Messages:
6,321
22. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,703
Good article. Let me direct your attention to:

"top effective tax rate was probably somewhere between 50-60% because of a tax code full of loopholes. Now, that’s still higher than today’s top effective tax rate of around 30%" - Yes. Further, back then people at the very top paid an effective tax rate of 70% - the article lists a few examples, like famous baseball players. Most other people found those loopholes; the richest (other than the aforementioned celebrities) paid 50-60% of their income. EVEN WITH all those loopholes. Today they pay 25%. That's a revenue loss.

One quote in that article said that it was likely that "the right level is 70 or 60 percent. . . Most importantly, I said very explicitly that I was talking about very, very high incomes, and that at least 99.5 percent of the population would be unaffected by this new top rate." Exactly. Increase the marginal rate on the top earners; 70% is a good goal. They make far more than ever before - so we would see a larger increase in revenues than in years past.

"If you measure the 1950s from 1950 to 1959, it did a bit better than average, growing at an annual rate of 4.2%. If you measure the decade from 1951 to 1960, it grew at 3.6% rate, a bit above average. " - Yep. Today it is far less than that. An excellent example of how high tax rates at the top margins do not cripple an economy.

Good article, and I agree that increasing top marginal tax rates to 70% or so is a good goal. Choose the cut-in point for that percentage by the revenue you need.

23. ### SeattleValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,321
Today the top rate is close to 40%. I'd have no problem making that top rate 50% but to be effective you're going to have to increase everyone's rate a bit and to reduce federal spending rather than the current spending levels with no regard to reality.