Dems Want to Up Debt Ceiling to Almost 2 Trillion

[Kulaf]

You cannot directly compare tax rates from the 50's to current rates due to several redefinitions of the tax brackets/rates in the IRS code.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha makes that mistake all the time, he doesn't get it.

[Partha]

Your argument without a point doesn't even address the 90's. Or was it so very different then, too?

[Kulaf]

It's not an arguement.....it's a point that you seem to fail to grasp every time you try to bring some kind of historical tax data in to prop up your arguement.

[Lurker]

It's also a point that cuts against your argument so stop pretending it negates Partha's.

[Kulaf]

It's also a point that cuts against your argument so stop pretending it negates Partha's.

Exactly what arguement are you referring to? My only point is that trying to say that tax rates were "incredibly high" in the past is a false claim because they cannot be directly linked to todays tax rates.

[Lurker]

And your point is dumb or disingenious. Most people can look at the information below and make a pretty good comparison even though the data doesn't match up exactly.

1950
20.0% $0 $2,000
22.0% $2,000 $4,000
26.0% $4,000 $6,000
30.0% $6,000 $8,000
34.0% $8,000 $10,000
38.0% $10,000 $12,000
43.0% $12,000 $14,000
47.0% $14,000 $16,000
50.0% $16,000 $18,000
53.0% $18,000 $20,000
56.0% $20,000 $22,000
59.0% $22,000 $26,000
62.0% $26,000 $32,000
65.0% $32,000 $38,000
69.0% $38,000 $44,000
72.0% $44,000 $50,000
75.0% $50,000 $60,000
78.0% $60,000 $70,000
81.0% $70,000 $80,000
84.0% $80,000 $90,000
87.0% $90,000 $100,000
89.0% $100,000 $150,000
90.0% $150,000 $200,000
91.0% $200,000 and up

2010
10.0% $0 $8,375
15.0% $8,375 $34,000
25.0% $34,000 $82,400
28.0% $82,400 $171,850
33.0% $171,850 $373,650
35.0% $373,650 and up

So you and Embar mocking Partha wasn't warranted. He does "get it".

[Kulaf]

No you can't because you are not accountning for indexing. Nor have you in any way normalized the data.

[Lurker]

Explain how someone earning (pick a number) today is paying a higher tax rate than someone making an equivalent salary (normalize, adjust for inflation, whatever you want) in 1950.

[Kulaf]

The "rate" is not higher because they are now indexed to the CPI. You should know this. Indexing allows lower "rates" while still capturing the same net result. This is why we also have fewer tax brackets.

[Embar Angylwrath]

the second part of that is what was a deductible expense and what wasn't. Without understanding that, you can't understand net taxable income, and the tax rates are meaningless without that context.

[Lurker]

Except that even at taxable income of 10,000 dollars the tax rate in 1950 was higher than our highest rate now. So nice try.

Kulaf, we don't index to CPI to reduce the number of tax brackets. You also took a complete pass on what I asked.

If you two really want to make the absurd argument that tax rates are higher now than they were in 1950, then make a case with some real numbers. All you're doing at the moment is making disingenuous statements of opinion and pretending it's fact.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Except that even at taxable income of 10,000 dollars the tax rate in 1950 was higher than our highest rate now. So nice try.

Kulaf, we don't index to CPI to reduce the number of tax brackets. You also took a complete pass on what I asked.

If you two really want to make the absurd argument that tax rates are higher now than they were in 1950, then make a case with some real numbers. All you're doing at the moment is making disingenuous statements of opinion and pretending it's fact.

You're mising the point Lurker.

If a person had $100,000 in real income, but was allowed to write of $90,000 of that, and pay income tax on $10,000, then a high tax rate is rendered somewhat meaningless sonce so much of the real income is off-limits in the net income calculation. That's why you have to understand what amount of cash was not allowed in the net income equation before you can do any real analysis of the effective tax rate. That's the real nugget, the effective tax rate. Nominal tax rates are meaningless.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=456

You'll see here that the 3 lower quintiles have seen a remarkable drop in effective tax rates since 1979. The highest quintile has stayed relatively flat.

[Lurker]

The numbers you posted show the effective tax rate has dropped nearly 6% since 1979 for the top quintile. The drop since 1950 would be even larger. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

The funniest part of all this is that you and Kulaf are arguing that taxes aren't lower now than they were in 1950, which runs counter to everything anyone has ever said about Republican tax policy. Remember the lie about Reagan cutting taxes and doubling revenue? Guess he didn't actually cut taxes after all, according to you and Kulaf. Either that, or you two are just speaking out of your ass to suit the argument of the moment, kind of like when you lied about how much taxes you'd have to pay when we were discussing a VAT.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Why don't you take a look at the quintiles again, and see what the PERCENTAGE drop has been for tax brackets? The lowest quintile now has an effective negative tax rate. But don't let facts cloud your hatred.

[Lurker]

How does that disprove the fact that tax rates now are lower than they were in 1950? Seems to bolster that position.

Who's side of this discussion are you on?

[Embar Angylwrath]

How does that disprove the fact that tax rates now are lower than they were in 1950? Seems to bolster that position.

Who's side of this discussion are you on?

I'm not trying to prove that tax rates are lower in the 50s, or higher in the 50s. My point in this discussion is you can't take a nominal tax rate and equate it to an effective tax rate.

[Kulaf]

How does that disprove the fact that tax rates now are lower than they were in 1950? Seems to bolster that position.

Who's side of this discussion are you on?

What are you trying to "prove" exactly? All I stated was you cannot look at a 91% tax rate from the 50's and in any way shape for form make a direct correlation to tax rates under Clinton. Period. End of discussion.

If you want to argue about effective tax rates over time then do so......but don't conflate the two.

[Lurker]

Nice job walking back your arguments.

Anyways, glad we're all on the same page now. Taxes were much higher in the 1950's than they are now. Duh.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Based on Lurker's statements and obvious denial, I'm pretty sure he was the mastermind behind Coakley's campaign.