Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bernie Sanders is a Centerist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 76 (822387)
10-24-2017 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
10-23-2017 4:34 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
quote:
If the rich are paying the vast majority of a tax, then it doesn't make sense to say that the tax has been shifted to another group.
Try looking at it from a different angle - one more important to individuals - the proportion of income taken in tax. Maybe you will see the problem then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2017 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 1:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 76 (822389)
10-24-2017 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 1:40 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
If the rich get to keep more of their money, through tax cuts, who is going to pick up the burden ?
To add more. Proportion of income taken is much more important as a measure of impact than the proportion of the total contributed by any group. (And it also matters how much is being collected)
Even then, the rich can afford to give a higher proportion of their income, because basic expenses have to be paid by everyone (housing, food, clothes)
And then there are other taxes, too. Shifting the tax burden from income tax to others is one way that the burden can be shifted - which won’t show in your figures because they only show the proportion of Federal income tax each group pays.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 1:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:53 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 37 of 76 (822419)
10-24-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 2:53 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
quote:
I understand that. I don't doubt that some of the burden has been shifted.
I wouldn't call it a massive shift because the rich still pay the most. That they're less burdened by it is an aside.
But that is not a valid argument. They pay a high proportion of Federal income tax, yes, although they also have quite a high share of the income. But that doesn’t tell us that there haven’t been big changes in the distribution of tax. It doesn’t even look at the changes at all - even in the only tax being considered.
The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. - for income tax - was 91% in the 50s. In 2015 it’s under 40%. Yes, there are some confounders in there but that looks like a pretty big change to me. And the 1950s are hardly regarded as bad by most conservatives.
Tax Policy Center

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 76 (822451)
10-25-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2017 11:25 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
quote:
Neither does the rate. The rate can go down while the contribution goes up if the income increases enough.
Unless you attribute the increase in income to the decrease in rate, we can at least say that the contribution is less than it would have been without the decrease.
quote:
What portion of the federal income tax was paid by the top 10% in the 1950s?* And how does that compare to the 70% of today?
How much of it has been shifted?
And if you read the source you will see that that is mostly due to increased income.
Which really doesn’t fit the narrative of the poor oppressed rich.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 50 of 76 (822458)
10-25-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
10-25-2017 11:40 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
quote:
Do you?
Partly. If you can influence your salary there is a stronger motive to award yourself pay rises when the tax rate is lower. So for company Directors and CEOs and some other high level officers, maybe.
But that isn’t the whole story, even there.
So in my view the tax burden has been shifted from what it would have been.
quote:
Yeah, so all this about the massive shift from the change in the rates is off.
See above. And remember that we’re still only looking at a part of the picture.
quote:
That ain't my narrative.
Seems to be the main point of complaints about the tax burden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024