Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[6andcounting]

(06-02-2015, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There has been a personal income tax for 103 years. The rates today are lower (or the same) than all but 16 of those years.

(06-02-2015, 04:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But we've been a country for 250 years.

And we didn't have roads, schools or a military in those 147 years before income taxes. 

[6andcounting]

(06-02-2015, 04:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I'm good with my tax rate...and the people writing the laws feel that is a fair rate for the work I do...why would it not be a fair rate for "investors"?

Want to raise mine a bit along with bringing everyone else up to where I am?  Go for it.

In the end we would ALL be better off as a nation.

We can make taxes fair by taking more of investor's money or by taking less of yours. I guess we just disagree on how to make things fair.

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 04:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I find this one kind of interesting.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

That is interesting, and shows that the issue at hand is not a new one. I have looked at similar tables showing percentages of tax revenues that were the different things and so on, but had never looked at the one comparing it to GDP. I'd like to see that table with additional coumns showing consumer spending, interest, government spending, and net exports as well as a column for national debt at the end of the year.

I may end up nerding out a bit and making such a table if I can find the info.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 04:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I'm good with my tax rate...and the people writing the laws feel that is a fair rate for the work I do...why would it not be a fair rate for "investors"?

Want to raise mine a bit along with bringing everyone else up to where I am?  Go for it.

In the end we would ALL be better off as a nation.

You keep comparing apples to oranges.  Your ordinary income tax rate is lower than high earners ordinary income tax rate. Probably by half.  Your capital gains tax rate is lower than a rich person's capital gains tax rate.  Probably by infinity.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 05:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is interesting, and shows that the issue at hand is not a new one. I have looked at similar tables showing percentages of tax revenues that were the different things and so on, but had never looked at the one comparing it to GDP. I'd like to see that table with additional coumns showing consumer spending, interest, government spending, and net exports as well as a column for national debt at the end of the year.

I may end up nerding out a bit and making such a table if I can find the info.

Yeah that would be all on you.  

It seems overall, our tax revenue to GDP remains pretty constant.  It looks like we pay a little higher personal tax to GDP than we did when the upper bracket was in the 90% range.  Corporate tax is a little lower.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 05:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that would be all on you.  

It seems overall, our tax revenue to GDP remains pretty constant.  It looks like we pay a little higher personal tax to GDP than we did when the upper bracket was in the 90% range.  Corporate tax is a little lower.  

As well as excise tax, which was never much going back on those records though would likely be higher pre-Civil War. I think ti would be good extra info though to see how much of a role the size of the GDP would be, plus the role government spending had to see how that all played into the debt. Then of course I'd have to add columns for the same amounts adjusted for inflation using 2011 or 2013 dollars or something.

I'm a government bean counter, this sort of thing is right up my alley.

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 05:00 PM)6andcounting Wrote: We can make taxes fair by taking more of investor's money or by taking less of yours. I guess we just disagree on how to make things fair.

Nope.  Mine stays the same...and the rest match my rate.

[Bhones10]

(06-02-2015, 05:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that would be all on you.  

It seems overall, our tax revenue to GDP remains pretty constant.  It looks like we pay a little higher personal tax to GDP than we did when the upper bracket was in the 90% range.  Corporate tax is a little lower.  

I pay about 45% counting federal, state and local income taxes. This does not include the sales tax, gasoline tax. I do not mind paying taxes if it was prudently used and not wasted. I looked at a study on some of the government waste like $300.000.00 to pay pay for,the Alabama watermelon queen could go around to the state fairs, or a 450,000 expenditue on a robot squirrel. The waste is what people are tired of when it comes to taxes. The federal government is so big it can not keep track of where they spend the money. Bring back the power to the states, i remember when i was young and very liberal we were against big government in our lives we used to say beware of big brother look out the window he is here. We are slowly losing our rights. The federal government is out of control, it is amazing people believe the federal government can solve all the problems of society actually it is very nieve

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 05:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope.  Mine stays the same...and the rest match my rate.

Match your rate?  You want them at zero? So does George think income is the government's and they give it out?

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 05:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Match your rate?  You want them at zero?

I'm a people...but I'm not a corporation.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 05:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm a people...but I'm not a corporation.

Well your capital gains rate is most likely zero.  You want the rich to be moved there?

[GMDino]

(06-02-2015, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well your capital gains rate is most likely zero.  You want the rich to be moved there?

I want all their income taxed like they are earning it.

[xxlt]

(06-02-2015, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Saw this recently, thought it'd be interesting to some here:

Well if that didn't convince me our taxes are too high I don't know what will!

[xxlt]

(06-02-2015, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: No...low.

It is a well known face Eisenhower was a communist!

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 03:48 PM)Benton Wrote: I thought the easiest thing for people to say was "across the board x% cut." 



That approach has lead to immigration problems, higher crime, homelessness and other problems. But we continue to spend more on "defense." 

We don't need as many bases as we have. We don't need bases in ally countries. We don't need nearly 50 military facilities in South Korea or the same number or more in Germany and Japan each. We have the technological capabilities to get troops anywhere in the world in half a day or less. We have intelligence assets that let us know a week before that half a day occurs.

We need to cut military spending.

As I have mentioned Defense has taken an cut and continues to do so. Everything you mention is or has happened. There are proposals that have us going to pre WWII spending/manning levels. I have seen a reduction to many of the benefits awarded Veterans. Military spendin has dropped 14% since 2010 with much deeper cuts on the horizon.

To be the Boss you got to pay the cost.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As well as excise tax, which was never much going back on those records though would likely be higher pre-Civil War. I think ti would be good extra info though to see how much of a role the size of the GDP would be, plus the role government spending had to see how that all played into the debt. Then of course I'd have to add columns for the same amounts adjusted for inflation using 2011 or 2013 dollars or something.

I'm a government bean counter, this sort of thing is right up my alley.

I thought excise tax would be higher now.  Tobacco alone, although there are far fewer users which may account for the difference.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 05:44 PM)xxlt Wrote: Well if that didn't convince me our taxes are too high I don't know what will!

But if you look at my link, we are the same as your halcyon days of the 50s.

[blt4584]

(06-01-2015, 06:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: working full time to only get to keep 10% is absurd.  There is no social benefit worth that math.   90% tax rate would kill growth.   

This isn't how the tax code works. The entirtiy of the income would not be taxed at 90%, only what they would make over a certain number. The rest of the income would be taxed at whatever percentage applies for those brackets.

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 05:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought excise tax would be higher now.  Tobacco alone, although there are far fewer users which may account for the difference.

No, we relied more heavily on excise taxes in the days of yore. The share of federal revenue made up by excise taxes has been steadily on the decline.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-02-2015, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I have mentioned Defense has taken an cut and continues to do so. Everything you mention is or has happened. There are proposals that have us going to pre WWII spending/manning levels. I have seen a reduction to many of the benefits awarded Veterans. Military spendin has dropped 14% since 2010 with much deeper cuts on the horizon.

To be the Boss you got to pay the cost.

Military spending increased approximately 75% from 2001 to 2010 in excess of $200 billion.  Per year.  I don't know about other services, but the Army expanded during simultaneous conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet operational demands.  The Army waived or reduced enlistment standards to meet recruitment quotas accepting a certain percentage of new recruits with criminal records, medical or psychiatric conditions normally disqualifying, and decreased educational standards.  Iraq is no longer the operational demand it once was so it is only natural for the Army to contract.  The Army did it as recently as the early 90s.  Did we get another Task Force Smith?

Spending on veteran benefits shouldn't be lumped into the same category as military spending.