Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bernie Sanders is a Centerist
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 76 (822170)
10-20-2017 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
10-20-2017 9:09 AM


In the last decades since Reagan there has been a massive shift of taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.
What taxes are you talking about? Federal income taxes?
This shifts the taxes back to the rich and off the poor and middle class.
Is this information not correct:
quote:
The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes.
The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.
The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.
sauce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2017 9:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DC85, posted 10-20-2017 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-21-2017 5:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2017 2:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 76 (822177)
10-20-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DC85
10-20-2017 3:32 PM


What taxes are you talking about? Federal income taxes?
Yes indeed for example he took the top rate from 70% down to 28%
And, yet, the top 10% still pay 70% of the federal income taxes?
How could these taxes have been shifted from the rich to the poor/middle if the rich are still paying most of the taxes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DC85, posted 10-20-2017 3:32 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2017 5:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 14 by DC85, posted 10-20-2017 6:37 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 76 (822198)
10-20-2017 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
10-20-2017 5:37 PM


There has been a shift of apples from me to you. I still have the most apples.
Ah, I was potentially misreading RAZD with an unintended implication that would be analogously to: there has been a shift of *most* of the apples from you to me.
If I had read: "there has been a shift of apples from you to me", I would have read that as being a significant amount rather than just one of 70 of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2017 5:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 76 (822345)
10-23-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
10-22-2017 2:45 PM


That information confuses the total amounts paid by the groups with what the individuals actually pay, what their tax rates are.
But the rate doesn't tell you how much is paid.
The context was who was paying for it and you replied that there has been a massive shift in taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.
It looks like the rich are still paying for most of it even if their rates have gone down.
People in the middle 60% pay more, people in the top 10% pay less so tax burden has been shifted from the top to the middle (that's most of us).
And still, the top ten percent are paying 70% of the federal income taxes and the bottom fifty percent are paying 3% of them.
So when you say a "massive shift" you are not talking about how much is being paid.
Now, you're talking about the "burden" of the taxes in the context of the percentage of income that is taxed and how those rates have changed - and calling that the massive shift.
But the changes in the rates doesn't tell you how much is actually being paid.
So the question of who is paying for it isn't answered - and calling the change in rates a massive shift from one to the other is spin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2017 2:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 76 (822351)
10-23-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
10-23-2017 12:51 PM


But the rate doesn't tell you how much is paid.
So effin what? -- that wasn't my argument.
Then your argument wasn't in context.
When I read your argument in context, it looked like you were saying that the amount of taxes being paid was shifted from the rich to the middle class and poor.
It turns out that isn't true, and that isn't what you were attempting to say. Instead, you were talking about the changes in the percentage of income that is tax, but that doesn't address the question of who is paying for it.
Precisely: "in taxes" -- not in amounts paid as a group.
And there has been. The tax rates show what the taxes a taxable income level pays, and to be accurate we would have to include all the tax loopholes that make taxable significantly less for rich people than their actual income, plus some income is taxed at a different rate on things like dividend and capital gains/losses -- things that generally do not apply to poor people. Plus off-shore tax havens, etc etc etc ... analysis of which shows that rich people are paying significantly less taxes than they should.
Then on the poor side we would have to include all income supplements from welfare to housing assistance to medicaid, etc to see their total benefits. As those assistance levels are cut that effectively taxes the poor more to replace those costs.
You would really need to quantify "take-home" income to compare apples and oranges.
And yet, the rich pay 70% to the others' 3%.
No, it is telling you the impact on the individuals: poor and middle income people are paying more and getting less while the rich are paying less and getting more.
And yet, in you look at federal income taxes the rich are still footing the bill.
This "massive shift" hasn't changed that.
When you look at which group is doing the paying, there hasn't been a shift that can be called massive.
You massive shift takes too much spin to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 12:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 76 (822366)
10-23-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
10-23-2017 3:23 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
What groups are paying what total amount is talking about totals, I'm talking about deltas.
Okay, I'm talking about totals.
The rich are now paying half what they paid before, that in my book qualifies with spades as a MASSIVE shift.
Well, it depends. Hypothetically, the rate can decrease while the total amount increases if the income increases enough.
You be talking about the rate going down when the result was that they paid more in total.
It doesn't really matter to me how much the rate has changed since 1960. That the top 10% are paying 70% of the federal income taxes doesn't look like a problem of the poor and middle class having those taxes shifted to them. Especially when the bottom 50% are only paying 3% of the federal income taxes.
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.
Sure, the rates have changed, but how much are people actually paying?
Turns out, if you look at federal income taxes, the rich are paying the bulk of them. They have not been shifted to the poor and middle class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2017 3:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 5:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 12:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 8:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 76 (822388)
10-24-2017 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
10-24-2017 12:50 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
I'm not exactly sure which problem it is that you're referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 12:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 2:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 76 (822414)
10-24-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
10-23-2017 5:41 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
I think there is something to be said for looking at the larger picture and not just at tax rates.
I agree, focusing on just the rates is too small of a picture.
The amount of inequality is getting pretty bad where the top 10% has 76% of the wealth, and that number is expected to get even worse as time moves on.
Okay. So, you're talking about holdings now - we were talking about income. Just sayin'.
I suppose an increase in holdings indicates an increase in income. I guess it makes sense that the rich are still paying most of the taxes even though the rates have changed so that some of the burden has been moved to the lower classes. But to the question of who is paying for it, the rates don't really tell you.
As far as the "problem" of the rich getting richer, I'm not convinced that is an issue with tax rates. Like, that people stopped supporting their local businesses and instead just go to WalMart is not a tax problem. If we want the rich to stop getting richer, then how about we stop giving them our money?
Giving them our money and then having the government force them to give it back in a roundabout way seems silly.
In 1960, a middle class family could easily could afford a degree from a state university. Now? It is much more common for a kid from a middle class family to leave school with $25,000 or more of debt, if they are lucky. Health care? That has skyrocketed, and benefits continue to decline.
Isn't that more of an issue with universities and health care than it is an issue with tax rates?
What tax cuts have done is push more of an economic burden onto the middle class, at least in my poorly informed economic opinion.
I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 5:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 76 (822416)
10-24-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
10-24-2017 2:10 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 ?
Others, I get it.
That phrasing threw me for a loop, though: if the rich get to keep more of their money... yikes that sounds like theft.
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.
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.
And I'm not convinced that the rich getting richer is a tax problem. Nor am I convinced that taxes are the right solution.
Hyperbolic spin doesn't cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 2:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 76 (822418)
10-24-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
10-24-2017 8:26 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
Which doesn't show you how the rates have changed. End argument -- you are using the wrong data for the argument that tax cuts -- changes in rates -- for the rich is shifting to tax increases -- changes in rates -- for the middle class and poor.
Actually, I'm just not arguing that.
Because totals don't tell you deltas. It doesn't matter how much they are paying if they are still paying less than before -- because that is a shift, a delta, a change, and not a total.
But the answer to the question of who is paying depends on how much people are paying and not how much their rates have changed. As I said, the rate could go down while the amount of payment goes up - and that would not be them paying less.
Still effin irrelevant to whether there has been a shift. You can't see it because you are looking at the wrong data.
I don't doubt that there has been some shifting - but I'm not buying your spin that it has been massive.
Maybe it has been, but I haven't seen it yet.
What was the amount of contribution from the top ten percent in 1960 and how does that compare to the 70% of today?
As others note, the real difference shows up in the levels of disposable income for the individuals. The poor and middle class have less disposable income than before, while the rich have more disposable income than before. This is due to tax cuts for the rich and increased burdens on the poor and middle class.
Is it really due to that? How do you know?
This is why the economy is not recovering at the bottom economic levels.
How do you know that's why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 8:26 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 76 (822449)
10-25-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
10-24-2017 3:22 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
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.
Neither does the rate. The rate can go down while the contribution goes up if the income increases enough.
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.
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?
*totally googled that sentence before submitting. Found this:
quote:
In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.
But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent. sauce
That sounds like the tax is being shifted to the rich not from them - the portion they paid went from 41% to 55% to 70%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2017 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 76 (822450)
10-25-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
10-25-2017 8:48 AM


Re: You're a conservative -- can you explain it?
Can you explain this:
As others note, the real difference shows up in the levels of disposable income for the individuals. The poor and middle class have less disposable income than before, while the rich have more disposable income than before. This is due to tax cuts for the rich and increased burdens on the poor and middle class.
Is it really due to that? How do you know?
This is why the economy is not recovering at the bottom economic levels.
How do you know that's why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 8:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 76 (822452)
10-25-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
10-25-2017 8:12 AM


Re: what resource?
Should Walmart pay a living wage or should they pay a starvation wage, encourage/train/school their workers to get medicare, housing assistance and food stamps so they can pocket the difference and we basically subsidize that behavior through paying the government assistance programs with out taxes? Is that the kind of "resource" you think needs to be protected, treasured, nurtured and encouraged?
The solution to the WalMart problem is to stop spending your money at WalMart, not using the federal government to force your will upon them.
Why should rich people get to decide what their salaries are, when a democratically run corporation can make those decisions in a way that supports all the workers equitably.
Nobody is stopping you. Go start your company and get to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2017 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 76 (822454)
10-25-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
10-25-2017 11:35 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
Unless you attribute the increase in income to the decrease in rate,
Do you?
And if you read the source you will see that that is mostly due to increased income.
Yeah, so all this about the massive shift from the change in the rates is off.
Which really doesn’t fit the narrative of the poor oppressed rich.
That ain't my narrative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2017 11:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2017 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 76 (822611)
10-30-2017 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
10-29-2017 11:01 AM


Re: what resource?
Curiously I haven't shopped at Walmart in decades,
Not just you personally, the collective you, i.e. all of us.
Last time I was in a WalMart it was packed.
Again, having my own company has had negligible effect
How many employees do you have? How do you go about democratically running your company so that decisions are made that support all the workers equitably?
Got anything that actually works?
I'm not the one trying to solve the problem.
But I understand that there are jobs that don't provide enough value to be worth a livable wage.
And that forcing compliance to your ideas via federal regulation is morally wrong.
I'll just go with the status quo until someone convinces me they have something better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2017 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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