I have seen the rates that Mook posted before and believe them to be true. They do not match up with the graph you posted Denny. The highest 1% has very little difference on your chart, and yet it has a significant difference on the one mook posted. Someone has false data.
Mook's data is not representative of whatever argument he's trying to make. The income tax is graduated. You pay X% on your first Y dollars, then Z% on your next dollars of income, and so on. The effective rate is what people actually pay. The top marginal rate is the % someone paid on the portion of their income, say from $240K to $250K or whatever. Few ever paid that top rate because they could pay accountants to figure out tax shelters. A better measure, even, would be tax revenue as a % of GDP.
This explains it better: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html The marginal tax rate is the rate on the last dollar of income earned. This is very different from the average tax rate, which is the total tax paid as a percentage of total income earned. In 2003, for example, the United States imposed a 35 percent tax on every dollar of taxable income above $155,975 earned by a married taxpayer filing separately. But that tax bracket applied only to earnings above that $155,975 threshold; income below that cutoff point would still be taxed at rates of 10 percent on the first $7,000, 15 percent on the next $14,400, and so on. Depending on deductions, a taxpayer might pay a relatively modest average tax on total earnings, yet nonetheless face a 28–35 percent marginal tax on any activities that could push income higher—such as extra effort, education, entrepreneurship, or investment. Marginal decisions (such as extra effort or investment) depend mainly on marginal incentives (extra income, after taxes).
Ditto, although I didn't vote as my income has varied greatly from year to year. I'm much more concerned with what my family and my countrymen get for our tax dollars than what it costs us. I just don't want to be ripped off.
I'm not sure how to answer the question. It seems to me backwards - usually one asks the question "what do I want to buy" first, rather than "what do I want to spend". I personally could be happy with a wide range of tax rates, but of course I'd expect government to provide the citizens with more services if I was paying 60% than if I was paying 30%. Off the top of my head, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for national health insurance, infrastructure projects in general and high-speed rail in particular, and - like many posters in this thread - to pay down the debt. There are things I'd prefer to spend less money on, too. One that comes to mind is defense projects that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I think anyone who is voting for a rate less than they currently pay should specify what spending they'd cut to arrive at the lower tax rate. It's easy to be for tax cuts if you don't have to consider the effects. Of course I know many of you are quite eager to cut various things out of the federal budget, so naming the programs you want to cut shouldn't present any great difficulty. To make it harder, two things: first, do the math. It won't work to give everyone a 10% tax cut in return for cutting some $20,000 research project on reproduction in African dungbeetles. Secondly, perhaps it would be good to present a plan for dealing with the effects of the cuts. For example, if you are going to blow away social security, as Brian wants to do... well, a lot of old folks live off their social security checks now. If there is no social security coming, what happens to the poor elderly? Are we ok with having more old people starve and/or freeze to death? Are we ok with possibly the average life expectancy going down? Or is Brian's church going to take care of all the old fogeys (and if so, where is the church going to get the money to do that?). If old farts have to work longer due to no retirement, doesn't that reduce the number of jobs available to younger people? Is it better to have old people working and young people on unemployment, or is it better to have old people on social security and young people working? I'm not saying there aren't answers to questions like these, or that people who want to cut government haven't thought about them. I'm just saying I'd be interested in hearing the answers. barfo
You're misrepresenting, barfo. Even in the post above, I'm for keeping SS for "fogeys". They've paid into SS, and they don't have the means (generally) to save up another retirement. Those under 50, however, do. Something like the following (obviously I haven't done the trades for exact ages and percentages): Over 50...you get what you have coming under the present rules. You pay what you've been paying into SS. 35-50: you get some percentage (around 40% or so), and keep paying what you've been paying into SS. You get a higher limit on your Roth/401k. under 35: you'll continue to pay into SS, maybe at some reduced percentage (75% or so). You get a higher limit on Roth/401k. You'll never get a dime of social security. It sucks to be under 35 (like me), but it's better to know now that you're not getting a dime and are responsible for your own savings, than to get to 60 and find out the gov't's not paying anymore. And I'm a HUGE fan of public assistance being given out at the community level, even if it's with Federal dollars (which I don't agree with). It allows for accountability and aid to those on public assistance, not some check-by-mail every month no matter what you're doing.
Note I wrote "what is the maximum percentage of your income you're willing to have all levels of government tax to pay for all the services you desire?" So, did you answer "60%"?
No, I knew that, but eventually even young people turn into old fogeys. It's those people I was asking about. Obviously no issue. Ok. Something is better than nothing, and some percentage (not 100%) will save more if given the opportunity. Of course the market may not help their 401k. Yeah, I understand that you kids will have warning and will have to plan ahead, but let's face it: some people don't plan ahead, and some people's plans get derailed, either due to their own mistakes or due to circumstances beyond their control. You are a huge fan of something you don't agree with? How does that work? That's a reasonable answer. Aid to those who need it, but not to those who don't. Basically stop sending SS checks to rich folk. I don't have any problem with that. Although it might actually cost more to do it that way - SS is pretty efficient since it just involves automatically mailing checks. Actually having caseworkers check for eligibility is kind of an expensive proposition, no? barfo
My answer is however much it costs. Saying I desire tons of services but I'm only willing to pay 5% is pretty silly. But if the services only cost 25%, it would also be pretty silly to be willing to pay 50%. So if I'm king, I make the list of services that I want government to provide, add up the costs, and then tax the people and myself enough to pay for them. barfo
For the "Huge fan" part, perhaps I didn't type it well...I don't like that Federal dollars are given for public assistance, but even if they were, I'd rather the community-level governments be the ones that administer the programs.
Yep. Pretty typical. Trying to squirm out of giving an answer. It doesn't matter how much it costs, the question is what you're willing to pay to have the government you desire.
I just don't think about the question the same way you do. The percentage of my income doesn't matter that much to me, what matters is what we get for the money. Is 100% too much? Obviously. Is 80% too much? I could pay it, but it seems kind of high for what I want from government. Is 60% too high? No, if we actually got an effective government that did the things that I want it to do and not the things that I don't want it to do, then I'd be happy to pay 60%. I'd be even happier to pay 40% or 20% for that. My guess - and I haven't done the math carefully - is that the actual cost of what I'd like to see would be about 50% - a little more than what I pay now. barfo
So, your answer is you're happy with the government you have now. No universal health care, no high speed rail. Good to know.
How in the world did you get that from my answer? It's wrong, in any case. I'm ok with the government we have now, but it certainly could be better. barfo
If you're paying 50% right now and you think that's the appropriate level, then you're happy with the government we have. Asking the government to be efficient is like asking me to be a L*ker fan--it's fantasy. So, what's the maximum you're willing to pay to get the government you want?
You aren't paying attention. I agree with that. I didn't say anything about efficiency. I have very little patience with people who are going to "reduce government waste". However - if I was king - I'd eliminate some programs, and put new ones in their place. It doesn't have anything to do with efficiency, it has to do with priorities. I think I already answered the question. barfo
Which government programs would you eliminate? Also, did you post your answer in the poll? If so, what was it?
I didn't post my answer in the poll, but I guess it would be 41-60 as the most likely outcome. However to answer the question literally, I'd go over 60 in certain circumstances, not likely over 80. If universal health care were added, then I'd be saving what I/my employer pays in health insurance now, so that amount can be added to the tax bill and I'm not really counting that here (since it isn't additional out of pocket). What would I eliminate. To start with, I'm fine with Brian's suggestion of not giving SS (or medicare, for that matter) to the rich (rich defined as you, me, and everyone above us). I'd implement it differently than Brian, I think, but the concept is fine. Weaning the future elderly off SS is also fine, although I don't favor eliminating it entirely as Brian does. We need to get SS to a point where it is not spending more than it is taking in on a long-term basis, and with more and more old farts coming down the pike, we have to adjust. I'd eliminate a lot of the defense budget. We could spend 1/2 as much or even less and be just as secure, assuming that the cuts were made rationally rather than irrationally. Again, I'm assuming I'm king here, so congresspeople don't get to spend money on stupid projects that the pentagon doesn't want just because they are built in their district. But we'd have to cut things the pentagon does want as well. We don't need to be spending 10x as much as any other country. On the local level, I'd (being king) eliminate at least one layer of government and maybe more. For example, county governments could be dissolved . Advances in travel and communication have removed the justification for county governments. Not really sure how much that would save but it would be something. For that matter many state government functions could be handled better at the federal level. Do we really need 50 different sets of motor vehicle laws? Why not just have a federal drivers license? Where there are actual differences between states, such as green energy programs or education, the states should continue to control, but where things have standardized, like driving, let the feds do it, and have one bureaucracy instead of 50. Ok, I guess now I am talking about efficiency... Naturally, I realize that none of these things has any hope in hell of being implemented. But you asked. barfo
barfo, If you were taxed 100%, you'd be a slave (literally and figuratively). If you were taxed 60%, you'd be 60% a slave. I have no beef with you wanting to pay 60%. Just keep your (and govt's) hands off my wallet. Anyhow... http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GGCVE00&show_article=1 Hoyer: Permanent middle class tax cuts too costly WASHINGTON (AP) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight retain control of Congress. In the shorter term, Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly. Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000—at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade. "As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. The tax cuts will be a big political issue in many congressional elections this fall, providing potential fodder for both political parties. Democratic leaders have yet to lay out a schedule for dealing with the tax cuts, but many rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them before the elections, so they can campaign on passing tax cuts for the middle class.
No, I don't think so. I have zero desire to be taxed at 100%, but if I was I wouldn't be a slave, because I'd still be free to change employers when I wanted. Slaves don't get that choice. Further, my spouse and offspring would not belong to my employer. Slavery and taxes aren't the same thing (literally or figuratively). That's just libertarian poppycock. barfo
