4 ms·

>...Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The tax burden has basically gone opposite of what you imply. For example, the

by opo 9y ago

>...Further, not being static does not mean it was ever meaningfully increased. The tax burden has basically gone opposite of what you imply. For example, the top 10% paid 49% of taxes in 1980 and paid 70% in 2014. (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes) The "top marginal rate" means very little by itself. What matters is the effective rate which takes into account the credits/deductions that are allowed, the other lower tax rates, etc. >...Compare US GDP growth and a high top marginal rate seems to promote growth, Those high marginal rates of the 1950's did not bring in some giant windfall to the government or somehow promote growth of GDP. Most economists are opposed to very high marginal tax rates due to the inefficiencies they introduce - compensation being moved to non-salary, money wasted on CPAs, lawyers and lobbying congress for special deductions, dead weight losses for economic activity that isn't done, etc.

Retric 9y ago
Top 10% made 20% of all income in 1980, they now make 50% of all income. So, going up to 70% is actually a drop in their tax rates. Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. PS: Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.)
- opo 9y ago
  What is the source of your data? According to the world bank and the OECD, from 1986 to now the income share held by the top 10% has been in a range from 27 - 31%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations=US http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations... http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistributionandpovertyinoecdcountries.htm http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistribution... >...Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. As I have tried to explain in the previous comment, the top marginal rate means very little. >...Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. In reality, they were a bad idea. It should be a hint that you don't see mainstream economists suggesting we return to them. Politicians find them a good talking point since everyone likes the idea of someone else paying more taxes, but you don't see economists suggesting it. >...Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.) How exactly does a confiscatory rate reduce the rent seeking behavior of capital - that seems like a different issue. In reality, high rates encourage money to be spent in non-productive ways to influence congress to carve out special tax deductions/credits. Enough loopholes were in the old tax code that some politically well connected wealthy people sometimes paid no taxes - this is why the AMT was created.
  - Retric 9y ago
    If you want to debate the numbers, there are 4 big options. Do you use households or individuals? Do you include capital gains or just realized income. Who do you exclude from the measurements ex: military, prison population, etc? And do you look at pre or post tax numbers? So, yes you can get rather different looking charts from what I said. But, honestly I don't feel like getting into a debate about this stuff.

by opo 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

Top 10% made 20% of all income in 1980, they now make 50% of all income. So, going up to 70% is actually a drop in their tax rates. Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. PS: Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.)

opo 9y ago
What is the source of your data? According to the world bank and the OECD, from 1986 to now the income share held by the top 10% has been in a range from 27 - 31%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations=US http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.10TH.10?locations... http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistributionandpovertyinoecdcountries.htm http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/growingunequalincomedistribution... >...Further, the top marginal tax rate has little to do with the top 10% of all incomes. As I have tried to explain in the previous comment, the top marginal rate means very little. >...Yes, in theory they where a bad idea. However, in practice they seem to have been a net benefit. In reality, they were a bad idea. It should be a hint that you don't see mainstream economists suggesting we return to them. Politicians find them a good talking point since everyone likes the idea of someone else paying more taxes, but you don't see economists suggesting it. >...Either though reducing the rent seeking behavior of capital, or alternatively because the middle class's spending is mass producible. (You can scale iPhones, you can't scale 50,000+$ watches because they are not intended to be scaled.) How exactly does a confiscatory rate reduce the rent seeking behavior of capital - that seems like a different issue. In reality, high rates encourage money to be spent in non-productive ways to influence congress to carve out special tax deductions/credits. Enough loopholes were in the old tax code that some politically well connected wealthy people sometimes paid no taxes - this is why the AMT was created.
- Retric 9y ago
  If you want to debate the numbers, there are 4 big options. Do you use households or individuals? Do you include capital gains or just realized income. Who do you exclude from the measurements ex: military, prison population, etc? And do you look at pre or post tax numbers? So, yes you can get rather different looking charts from what I said. But, honestly I don't feel like getting into a debate about this stuff.