1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Our Looming Budget Disaster

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by BigRob, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    Not during WW2, or the 50's under Eisenhower. Get your stories straight. In fact, during the founding of this country it was only the wealthy that paid any tax as was set up in the Constitution, and Jefferson wrote about. "Loopholes" were the invention of the Repugnant ones you support, and should never have been allowed.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates

    • "Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
    • Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
    • Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
      "
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  2. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    You can argue the "economy still worked" and that's is correct - however the data also shows us that between 1950 and today we can basically expect to collect the same amount of taxes as a percentage of GDP regardless of the rates. There is some data (but I think its incomplete) that says the early decades with the higher rates correlated to slightly lower tax collections as percentage of GDP.

    The data basically seems to show us that you can raise taxes - but collections are going to effectively be range bound as a percentage of GDP. Hence why the goal of tax policy in general, in my opinion, should be to grow GDP - not to maximize collections. What economic argument can be made that a 90% tax rate on those earning (It's about $3.5 million in today's dollars) will grow GDP?
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    The debt is driven by spending more money than the government collects. Data shows us that generally regardless of the different rates between 1950 and today the government will collect essentially the same percentage of tax as a percentage of GDP.

    It is a generally true statement that "poor" people do not have a federal income tax burden. I'm not sure I follow the logic that cutting tax rates is "taking" from someone that did not have a federal income tax burden to begin with....

    I reject any economic argument that cannot stand on its own without deferring to a religious or social argument to justify it.

    Not even worth a response...
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice