Dems Want to Up Debt Ceiling to Almost 2 Trillion

[Lurker]

No you said they were "incredibly high". Saying that compares what they were then to what they are now.

And we can only say for certain that effective tax rates were much higher for high wage earners in 1960. We can assume the same trend holds true back to 1950 but since there's no compiled data we can't say for sure. And nobody, at any time in this thread, said there was an exact correlation between marginal and effective tax rates. So we'll be more careful with our language in the future.

And sorry for thinking you and Embar were implying that effective tax rates were actually lower in the past than they are now. Clearly you would never make such a stupid argument as that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

But I never said a damn thing about an exact correlation between rates. I said tax rates were higher, and everyone agrees. So quit your useless Clinton-style parsing about what is is, and admit that the rich have it far easier now then they've had since before the 30's.

Partha, when the max marginal tax rate in this country was 70%, the effective tax rate for that quintile was about 27%. When it the max marginal tax rate dropped to 28%, the effective tax was close to the same as it was when the marginal tax rate was 70%. Since 1979, wild swings in marginal tax rates haven't had that much of an impact on effective tax rates.

The simple reason for this is that definitions of taxable income change just about everytime they change the marginal rates. Remember when all interest expense was deductible against income? That was the state of affairs when the marginal rate was 70%, so you can see how its utterly absurd to put any type of emphasis on a marginal rate without understanding how taxable income is figured for the timeframe you're looking at.

[Lurker]

Try looking at the top 2% of wage earners instead of the top 20%. That's the group we're discussing.

[Kulaf]

And you found a 6% drop in what.......40 years? Hardly a call that in the past rates were "incredibly high".

[Kulaf]

Try looking at the top 2% of wage earners instead of the top 20%. That's the group we're discussing.

No that is the group YOU are discussing. No where did Partha or any of us narrow the scope of the dicussion to the top 2%.

[Partha]

I'll take 'incredibly high' because you can't show me a modern example where the effective tax rates were higher on the private sector. And you're still parsing because you got nothing.

Further, you're still not arguing the '90s, when Clinton raised taxes on the private sector and prosperity wasn't affected negatively. That's because you got nothing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The corollary is also true Partha. When the marginal tax rate dropped from 70% there wasn't a collapse in the economy nor tax revenues. Marginal rates are meaningless.

[Lurker]

Re-read what you just said and then start walking it back.

Obviously there was no collapse in the economy due to tax cuts since they provide some economic stimulus, but to say there was no "collapse" in tax revenues is mind bogglingly ignorant. Reagan's tax cuts gutted federal revenue so much he had to raise taxes five times afterwards. The Bush tax cuts alone cost trillions in tax revenue and are the number one contributer to our current annual deficit.

[Kulaf]

I'll take 'incredibly high' because you can't show me a modern example where the effective tax rates were higher on the private sector. And you're still parsing because you got nothing.

Further, you're still not arguing the '90s, when Clinton raised taxes on the private sector and prosperity wasn't affected negatively. That's because you got nothing.

I didn't discuss tax rates under Clinton because you CAN make a direct comparrison to current rates. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Partha]

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me then that taxing the private sector won't damage prosperity. Especially if it taxes the parts that were wildly successful when most of the country was going through a recession, correct?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me then that taxing the private sector won't damage prosperity. Especially if it taxes the parts that were wildly successful when most of the country was going through a recession, correct?

Effective tax rates for the lowest qunitle have dropped over 600% (from 0% to -6.6%). So obvioulsy that caused the recession. And that statement makes as much sense as your post, and has just about as much to do with tax rates and economic expansion and retraction.

[Kulaf]

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me then that taxing the private sector won't damage prosperity. Especially if it taxes the parts that were wildly successful when most of the country was going through a recession, correct?

If by "private sector" you mean business......it will just be a tax on all of us. Business is going to make it's profit goals some way, and if you tax all of them as a whole they will just pass it on, so basically it becomes a consumption tax. So if you feel consumption taxes target the right people....

[Partha]

Well, I'm glad to see you agree with me then that taxing the private sector won't damage prosperity. Especially if it taxes the parts that were wildly successful when most of the country was going through a recession, correct?

Effective tax rates for the lowest qunitle have dropped over 600% (from 0% to -6.6%). So obvioulsy that caused the recession. And that statement makes as much sense as your post, and has just about as much to do with tax rates and economic expansion and retraction.

Erm, no, because it's been shown time and time again that money that goes into the pockets of the lowest quintile gets spent, and therefore produces economic activity. In contrast, unlike Republican/Libertarian fantasies, money that goes into the pockets of the superrich gets put into things that don't generate economic activity, such as stocks and tax shelters. This is why food stamps and welfare are the best 'bang for your buck' in a recession, because the poor don't have a real option of saving it or hiding it away from the economy like the wealthiest do.

Fallakin (being wrong, again) said that taxing the private sector causes loss of jobs. I said nonsense, using the fact that tax rates on the private sector were more onerous in the 50's than today (true) and tax rates increased on the private sector in the 90's (also true) and there was no job loss (true).

You want to keep arguing against that? Fine. Bring out your data.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Fallakin (being wrong, again) said that taxing the private sector causes loss of jobs.

You're recollection was wrong.

I'm not either, but wouldn't more taxes on the private sector result in less new jobs?

I simply asked an honest question on the matter and never said anything else.