[MERGE] Historic Tax Rates, Taxation vs. Economic Growth, ETC. [MERGE]

[Will]

There's also no connection between high marginal rates and economic growth.

In fact, the higher the rates, the more likely they could retard growth.

In a theoretical world where the government could magically fund itself, ANY economist, no matter how liberal, would tell you that the optimal tax rate is Zero.

Unfortunately in the real world we have to levy taxes to fund government. The best way to do so is to spend as little as possible as wisely as possible and keep taxes as low as possible.

Guess I'll re-post these as well since the other thread got mysteriously abandoned:

Originally Posted by Will

Correlation does not equal causation.

Please explain HOW raising income taxation boosts economic growth, productivity, etc.

Originally Posted by Will

Also, FYI, if you converted all of today's tax brackets to their equivalent counterparts from the 1950s and 1940s by adjusting for inflation, EVERY BRACKET WOULD BE LOWER.

There were additional upper brackets, BUT the very top brackets back in the day were a political gimmick. FDR's 1935 act creating a new top bracket applied to ONE SINGLE AMERICAN - John Rockefeller Jr.

In fact, I would fully support changing today's current rates to the rates levied in 1940, at the height of the New Deal era before WW2 began.

For individuals, income above $379,000 is currently taxed at the top marginal rate of 35%.

$379,000 today is the equivalent of $25,000 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 31%

For individuals, income above $175,000 and below $380,000 is currently taxed at 33%. $175,000 today is the equivalent of $11,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 14%

For individuals, income above $84,000 and below $175,000 is taxed at 28%. $84,000 today is the equivalent of $5,500 in 1940. The marginal rate for that level in 1940? 8%

All income below $61,000 in today's dollars would qualify for the lowest bracket in 1940, 4%.



P.S. --- Highest New Deal Federal Spending as a percentage of GDP?????

10.7% in 1934.

[Will]

Actually on second thought I think we'll just merge these threads.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Felt the urge to merge huh?

[Will]

Taxation vs. Economic Growth: Weak Negative Correlation

Today's Fun Fact: Since 1947, Overall levels of taxation in the U.S. have shown a weak negative correlation with economic growth:



Data-Set Links:

Federal Reciepts

Gross Domestic Product

Taxation vs. Economic Growth: Weak Negative Correlation

[Joecooool]

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...913_2013_0.pdf

Top tax rates in the 1940's and 50's was over 90%. It was still at 70% as recently as 1981.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...913_2013_0.pdf

Top tax rates in the 1940's and 50's was over 90%. It was still at 70% as recently as 1981.

And in the 70's the economy was in the tank and interest rates and inflation were both in the double digits.

[lander]

We owned slaves back in the 1850's, should we go back to doing that too?

Oh wait...we already are becoming slaves to .gov.

[Chris Fowler]

What percentage of the population did that top tax rate apply to?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

What percentage of the population did that top tax rate apply to?

THAT is the whole thing....it's a function of INFLATION, as the .gov prints MONEY and prices go through the ROOF for most any AMERICAN made product,....look at a gallon of MILK for instance.....

and forget the China crap sold in the malls and other joints.....

you get a handle on the TRUE cost of this welfare state.....


SO everyone feels the higher rates through inflation, but it gets them NOWHERE.....

in other words, yet another .gov LIE!!!!!!





you see, guys like Cool are SO far ahead of the curve they don't have to give a shit.....so they let their liberal 'morality' side come out from their socialist/communist/sob sister side of their background come out....

typical liberal, when their asses are secured, like the commie educated jerks sucking 100 grand+ off our tax money in retirement alone.....

you can figger WE the TAX payers are screwed.....and CONNgress is guilty as shown....

[VITE1]

Is what was revenue at those rates?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Is what was revenue at those rates?

WHO cares?? it's about PURCHASING POWER, while the .gov measures it by dollar amounts and a % and so everyone gets jacked to hell UP in rates, while the purchasing power of each buck is killed off through INFLATION.....a double whammy.....

[Chris Fowler]

Hmm...

1950, top tax rate was 91% for single earning $200k, married earning $400k.

Translates to $2m single and $4m married today. And only applied to a few thousand people.

Even more interesting, those making $0-2k paid 20% in taxes, and it went up as their income went up.

That's the bigger piece of the pie that's missing. The bottom income earners still paying their "fair share" was worth more to the country than the upper income earners paying stupid rates.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Hmm...

1950, top tax rate was 91% for single earning $200k, married earning $400k.

Translates to $2m single and $4m married today. And only applied to a few thousand people.

Even more interesting, those making $0-2k paid 20% in taxes, and it went up as their income went up.

That's the bigger piece of the pie that's missing. The bottom income earners still paying their "fair share" was worth more to the country than the upper income earners paying stupid rates.

Said better than my reply, but methinks we on same side.....

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Wait Joe provides misleading information?! NFW!

Misleading? No. He was providing facts.

It was just incomplete...once completed it misses his point.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by TxAg

incomplete in order to mislead.

More likely incomplete because his side didn't tell him that part. IMHO, he thought he had a good argument.

[DJ_Critterus]

Phil, you can pay all the taxes you want at those rates to your liberal overlords. Reagan (and I know you lived through the Reagan years) proved that lowering taxes stimulates the economy and it WORKS!

Only problem with the libs is they don't care. It's all about control with YOUR side.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

No wonder I got my ass handed to me this year with my taxes.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

And in the 70's the economy was in the tank and interest rates and inflation were both in the double digits.

You can not say the same thing for all the years between the 1940's - 1981. Not even most. The only bad years for inflation were in the Ford and Carter administrations and the primary cause of that was stagflation caused by heavy war debts from the Nixon Administration combined with the 1973 oil crisis. Inflation rose after 1973 to a 7.7% annual rate. Inflation then reached 9.1% in 1975, the highest rate since 1947. That's what Carter inherited from Nixon / Ford. By 1980, inflation had hit 13.5%.

The Federal Reserve substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation.

The Federal Reserve chairman intentionally slowed the rate of growth of the money supply and raised interest rates. The federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, rose to 20% by June 1981. The prime interest rate eventually reached 21.5% in Reagan's second year.

People also forget that unemployment in 1975 was at 9%, by Carter's third year, that had dropped to 5.6%.

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Hmm...

1950, top tax rate was 91% for single earning $200k, married earning $400k.

Translates to $2m single and $4m married today. And only applied to a few thousand people.

Even more interesting, those making $0-2k paid 20% in taxes, and it went up as their income went up.

That's the bigger piece of the pie that's missing. The bottom income earners still paying their "fair share" was worth more to the country than the upper income earners paying stupid rates.

But since the Reagan there has been a major change in how income is distributed. The income gains at the top have been massive compared to the micro gains at the bottom.





A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And I have no problem with people making less than $50K a year paying at least some taxes. But make no mistake, that isn't where the money is.

Also, in your 1950 year reference point, people making as little at $16K a year were taxed at 50%.

Originally Posted by TxAg

Wait Joe provides misleading information?! NFW!

I provided facts. I am not advocating going back to anywhere close to those rates, I am simply pointing out the fact that the current tax rates are in no way whatsoever remotely comparable to how it use to be.

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Phil, you can pay all the taxes you want at those rates to your liberal overlords. Reagan (and I know you lived through the Reagan years) proved that lowering taxes stimulates the economy and it WORKS!

Only problem with the libs is they don't care. It's all about control with YOUR side.

Then explain why the economy took a shit when Bush lowered taxes.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Not even most. The only bad years for inflation were in the Ford and Carter administrations and the primary cause of that was stagflation caused by heavy war debts from the Nixon Administration combined with the 1973 oil crisis.

Just to pick the most blatant misrepretentation of "Facts" in the post:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Vietnam WarMain articles: Vietnam War and Role of the United States in the Vietnam War
The pro-Hanoi Vietcong began a guerrilla campaign in the late 1950s to overthrow Diem's government, which an official Vietcong statement described as a "disguised colonial regime."[42] In the North, the communist government launched a land reform program, which, according to Steven Rosefielde, was "aimed at exterminating class enemies."[43] It is estimated that between 50,000[44] and 172,000[43] people perished in the campaigns against wealthy farmers and landowners. Rosefielde discusses much higher estimates, ranging from 200,000 to 900,000, which include summary executions of National People's Party members.[43][45] In the South, Diem went about crushing political and religious opposition, imprisoning or killing tens of thousands.[46]


A Vietcong soldier stands guard during a prisoner exchange with American forces in 1973.In 1963, Buddhist discontent with Diem's pro-Catholic regime erupted into mass demonstrations following the banning of the Buddhist flag and the Hue Vesak shootings. With Diem unwilling to compromise, Nhu orchestrated the Xa Loi Pagoda raids; estimates of the death toll range into the hundreds. As a result, America's relationship with Diem broke down, resulting in the 1963 coup that saw Diem and Nhu assassinated.

The Diem era was followed by a series of corrupt military regimes that often lasted only months before being toppled by other military officers. With South Vietnam paralyzed by instability, the communists began to gain ground. There were more than a dozen South Vietnamese governments between 1961 and 1965, before the pairing of Air Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky and General Nguyễn Văn Thiệu took control in mid-1965. Thieu gradually outmaneuvered Ky and cemented his grip on power in fraudulent elections in 1967 and 1971.[47]

To support South Vietnam's struggle against the communist insurgency, the United States began increasing its contribution of military advisers, using the controversial 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident as a pretext for such intervention. US forces became embroiled in ground combat operations in 1965, and at their peak they numbered more than 500,000.[48][49] The US also engaged in a sustained aerial bombing campaign. Communist forces attacked major targets in South Vietnam en masse during the 1968 Tet Offensive, and although their campaign failed militarily, it shocked the American establishment, and turned US public opinion against the war.[50] In the former capital city of Huế, communist troops captured the Imperial Citadel and much of the city, which led to the Battle of Huế. During the interim between the capture of the Citadel and end of the Battle of Huế, the communist forces massacred over 3,000 unarmed civilians. Communist forces supplying the Vietcong carried supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail, which passed through Laos and Cambodia. US presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon authorized Operation Commando Hunt and Operation Menu, Strategic Air Command bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia, about which only high-ranking Congressional officials were informed.[51]

Its own casualties mounting, and facing opposition to the war at home and condemnation abroad, the US began withdrawing from ground combat roles according to the Nixon Doctrine; the process was subsequently called Vietnamization. The effort had mixed results, ultimately failing to stabilize South Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords of 27 January 1973 formally recognized the sovereignty of Vietnam "as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements." Under the terms of the accords, all American combat troops were withdrawn by 29 March 1973. Limited fighting continued, before North Vietnam captured the province of Phuoc Long in December 1974 and started a full-scale offensive, culminating in the Fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. South Vietnam briefly came under the nominal rule of a Provisional Revolutionary Government while under military occupation by North Vietnam. On 2 July 1976, North and South Vietnam were merged to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[1] The war left Vietnam devastated, with the total death toll standing at between 800,000 and 3.1 million, and many thousands more crippled by the use of chemical weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange.[39][52][53]

Nixon took office January 20, 1969.

[DJ_Critterus]

Phil, the economy took a shit starting with rising fuel prices and tge housibg bubble. Raising taxes wont fix that. Cobsider the. Gov makes more from a gallon of gas than big oil. Meh, you wont do that. Your talkibg points wont let you think for yourself.