Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Robert Reich on the Current Tax System

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."

I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 1:52:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

Would you mind sourcing me the links necessary for me to respond to this forum?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:08:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 1:52:13 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

Would you mind sourcing me the links necessary for me to respond to this forum?

Which links?

I think these are what you mean:

http://www.slate.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.ctj.org...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.epi.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:55:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."


I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

I honestly can disagree with nothing he's saying. I've been advocating taxing the rich heavily for a long time. The taxing balance has always been a delicate issue ever since nobility and serfdom. I do understand the argument that taxing the rich yields less investment, but this argument is incredibly weak at this point.

Let's analyze two 19th nations that also once faced this issue. Britain once tried to raise the taxes on the rich, and failed. Every time they tried, investment decreased, and the economy was hurt.

Then we have Mexico, where the wealth inequality gap was so extremely high, the nobles literally had 1000 times the value of a peasant. As soon as they taxed the rich higher though, the economy improved extremely.

We are left with this question though. Are we Mexico or Britain? I believe were Mexico. The social equality gap has become so divided, that the rich are actually keeping more money then is being invested back into the economy. This is a concern, and must be amended.

I'm not sure what the proper rate is we should apply, and to be honest, I never really thought about it, but something does need to change. Or we risk all the money going slowly to the top.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:56:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 5:55:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."


I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

I honestly can disagree with nothing he's saying. I've been advocating taxing the rich heavily for a long time. The taxing balance has always been a delicate issue ever since nobility and serfdom. I do understand the argument that taxing the rich yields less investment, but this argument is incredibly weak at this point.

Let's analyze two 19th nations that also once faced this issue. Britain once tried to raise the taxes on the rich, and failed. Every time they tried, investment decreased, and the economy was hurt.

Then we have Mexico, where the wealth inequality gap was so extremely high, the nobles literally had 1000 times the value of a peasant. As soon as they taxed the rich higher though, the economy improved extremely.

We are left with this question though. Are we Mexico or Britain? I believe were Mexico. The social equality gap has become so divided, that the rich are actually keeping more money then is being invested back into the economy. This is a concern, and must be amended.

I'm not sure what the proper rate is we should apply, and to be honest, I never really thought about it, but something does need to change. Or we risk all the money going slowly to the top.

*19th century
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:23:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 5:55:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."


I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

I honestly can disagree with nothing he's saying. I've been advocating taxing the rich heavily for a long time. The taxing balance has always been a delicate issue ever since nobility and serfdom. I do understand the argument that taxing the rich yields less investment, but this argument is incredibly weak at this point.

Let's analyze two 19th nations that also once faced this issue. Britain once tried to raise the taxes on the rich, and failed. Every time they tried, investment decreased, and the economy was hurt.

Then we have Mexico, where the wealth inequality gap was so extremely high, the nobles literally had 1000 times the value of a peasant. As soon as they taxed the rich higher though, the economy improved extremely.

We are left with this question though. Are we Mexico or Britain? I believe were Mexico. The social equality gap has become so divided, that the rich are actually keeping more money then is being invested back into the economy. This is a concern, and must be amended.

I'm not sure what the proper rate is we should apply, and to be honest, I never really thought about it, but something does need to change. Or we risk all the money going slowly to the top.

Would you mind sourcing the history you brought up? That's not my understanding of it.

Also, you may want to look into, if you haven't already, the EPI study I cited. It references a number of studies, including one from Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond, that place the revenue-maximizing top effect tax rate at 68.7%, and the nominal rate around 54-80%.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:26:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:23:56 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:55:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."


I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

I honestly can disagree with nothing he's saying. I've been advocating taxing the rich heavily for a long time. The taxing balance has always been a delicate issue ever since nobility and serfdom. I do understand the argument that taxing the rich yields less investment, but this argument is incredibly weak at this point.

Let's analyze two 19th nations that also once faced this issue. Britain once tried to raise the taxes on the rich, and failed. Every time they tried, investment decreased, and the economy was hurt.

Then we have Mexico, where the wealth inequality gap was so extremely high, the nobles literally had 1000 times the value of a peasant. As soon as they taxed the rich higher though, the economy improved extremely.

We are left with this question though. Are we Mexico or Britain? I believe were Mexico. The social equality gap has become so divided, that the rich are actually keeping more money then is being invested back into the economy. This is a concern, and must be amended.

I'm not sure what the proper rate is we should apply, and to be honest, I never really thought about it, but something does need to change. Or we risk all the money going slowly to the top.

Would you mind sourcing the history you brought up? That's not my understanding of it.

Also, you may want to look into, if you haven't already, the EPI study I cited. It references a number of studies, including one from Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond, that place the revenue-maximizing top effect tax rate at 68.7%, and the nominal rate around 54-80%.

I think you misunderstood me. I agreed with you. I did look at all your sources as well and they were beneficial.

As for the social inequality gap in Mexico, it was most certainly there. Its still there, so imagine how bad it was in elitist Mexico.

http://247wallst.com...
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:28:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:26:59 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:23:56 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:55:39 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 9:53:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've been following Secretary Reich's facebook page for quite some time, and today I found his post particularly insightful. Knowing of the vast population of conservatives on this site, I wanted to see how they would respond to his points -- step out of the bubble for just a moment, gentleman.

He wrote:

"It"s getting to be tax time again, when our minds turn toward paying the taxes we owe or possibly getting a tax refund. But what we don"t think about enough the unfairness of our tax system. The richest .1 percent of Americans is now getting the largest percent of total national income they've received in almost a century, so you might think they"d pay a much higher tax rate than everyone else. But you'd be wrong. Many pay a lower total tax rate than middle-class Americans.

How can this be? Five reasons: They (1) deduct from their taxable income such things as large interest payments on mortgages for huge homes, the costs of business entertainment and conferences (vacations at golf resorts), and gold-plated health care plans; (2) park their earnings in offshore tax havens; (3) treat other income as capital gains, subject to a much lower tax rate (if they happen to be hedge-fund or private-equity managers, the "carried interest" loophole is designed especially for them); (4) spend a tiny portion of their incomes on Social Security payroll taxes, which are capped this year at $117,000; and (5) pay a much smaller share of their incomes on state and local sales taxes than anyone else (the poorest fifth of Americans pay an average state and local tax rate of over 11 percent of their incomes, while the richest fifth pay only 5.6 percent of theirs).

Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. Paul Ryan's new budget lowers the top federal tax rate to 25 percent. When the rich are let off the hook in all these ways, the rest of America has to pay more in taxes to make up the difference " or have services cut because government doesn"t have the funds. It's not fair. Make a ruckus."


I can honestly say that I agree with every word of this, but I'd love to hear a counter-argument.

I honestly can disagree with nothing he's saying. I've been advocating taxing the rich heavily for a long time. The taxing balance has always been a delicate issue ever since nobility and serfdom. I do understand the argument that taxing the rich yields less investment, but this argument is incredibly weak at this point.

Let's analyze two 19th nations that also once faced this issue. Britain once tried to raise the taxes on the rich, and failed. Every time they tried, investment decreased, and the economy was hurt.

Then we have Mexico, where the wealth inequality gap was so extremely high, the nobles literally had 1000 times the value of a peasant. As soon as they taxed the rich higher though, the economy improved extremely.

We are left with this question though. Are we Mexico or Britain? I believe were Mexico. The social equality gap has become so divided, that the rich are actually keeping more money then is being invested back into the economy. This is a concern, and must be amended.

I'm not sure what the proper rate is we should apply, and to be honest, I never really thought about it, but something does need to change. Or we risk all the money going slowly to the top.

Would you mind sourcing the history you brought up? That's not my understanding of it.

Also, you may want to look into, if you haven't already, the EPI study I cited. It references a number of studies, including one from Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond, that place the revenue-maximizing top effect tax rate at 68.7%, and the nominal rate around 54-80%.

I think you misunderstood me. I agreed with you. I did look at all your sources as well and they were beneficial.

As for the social inequality gap in Mexico, it was most certainly there. Its still there, so imagine how bad it was in elitist Mexico.

http://247wallst.com...

Oh, fair enough, and an interesting piece to boot.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.

Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:04:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.


Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.

Once again, you have failed to offer any facts or even read through my sources. You're hopelessly grasping at straws.

No, it isn't high. The CBO placed it at 33.6 percent total federal effective tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov...). But, frankly, anyone with any basic knowledge of statistics will you that median is the best measure with such substantial outliers, since the top 1 percent begins at around $400,000 and extends to tens of billions ad infinitum. Many members of the top .1 percent, for instance, pay lower rates because much of their income is derived in capital gains.

You keep making these ridiculous baseless claims. You're the one who attacked Robert Reich as if there is some secret information
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:04:43 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.


Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.

Once again, you have failed to offer any facts or even read through my sources. You're hopelessly grasping at straws.

No, it isn't high. The CBO placed it at 33.6 percent total federal effective tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov...). But, frankly, anyone with any basic knowledge of statistics will you that median is the best measure with such substantial outliers, since the top 1 percent begins at around $400,000 and extends to tens of billions ad infinitum. Many members of the top .1 percent, for instance, pay lower rates because much of their income is derived in capital gains.

You keep making these ridiculous baseless claims. You're the one who attacked Robert Reich as if there is some secret information

Ladies and gentleman. We finally have a number: 33.6%

To me and most sane people that seems pretty damn high.

But, if you think 33.6% is too low, what is enough?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:25:48 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:04:43 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.


Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.

Once again, you have failed to offer any facts or even read through my sources. You're hopelessly grasping at straws.

No, it isn't high. The CBO placed it at 33.6 percent total federal effective tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov...). But, frankly, anyone with any basic knowledge of statistics will you that median is the best measure with such substantial outliers, since the top 1 percent begins at around $400,000 and extends to tens of billions ad infinitum. Many members of the top .1 percent, for instance, pay lower rates because much of their income is derived in capital gains.

You keep making these ridiculous baseless claims. You're the one who attacked Robert Reich as if there is some secret information


Ladies and gentleman. We finally have a number: 33.6%

To me and most sane people that seems pretty damn high.

But, if you think 33.6% is too low, what is enough?

Where are your facts? I keep asking you for facts. You have none.

Bear in mind that the outliers are massive, and there are a number of examples -- e.g., extremely profitable companies, which mind you pay an average corporate tax rate of about 19.4% (which isn't enough) -- of people paying less and state tax systems, as Reich points out, being highly, highly regressive.

Anyway, top tax rates from 1945-1980 were about 70-91% and the economy boomed, with effective rates around 52-58%. The studies that I linked to, that you have yet to read, place the top effective revenue-maximizing rate at 68.7%, so I wouldn't mind moving closer to that. Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez place the top optimal statutory rate around 73%, some would go as far as 80%. I'd say 70% on income over, say, $10 million is fair.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 9:47:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:37:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:25:48 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:04:43 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.


Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.

Once again, you have failed to offer any facts or even read through my sources. You're hopelessly grasping at straws.

No, it isn't high. The CBO placed it at 33.6 percent total federal effective tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov...). But, frankly, anyone with any basic knowledge of statistics will you that median is the best measure with such substantial outliers, since the top 1 percent begins at around $400,000 and extends to tens of billions ad infinitum. Many members of the top .1 percent, for instance, pay lower rates because much of their income is derived in capital gains.

You keep making these ridiculous baseless claims. You're the one who attacked Robert Reich as if there is some secret information


Ladies and gentleman. We finally have a number: 33.6%

To me and most sane people that seems pretty damn high.

But, if you think 33.6% is too low, what is enough?


Where are your facts? I keep asking you for facts. You have none.

Bear in mind that the outliers are massive, and there are a number of examples -- e.g., extremely profitable companies, which mind you pay an average corporate tax rate of about 19.4% (which isn't enough) -- of people paying less and state tax systems, as Reich points out, being highly, highly regressive.

Anyway, top tax rates from 1945-1980 were about 70-91% and the economy boomed, with effective rates around 52-58%. The studies that I linked to, that you have yet to read, place the top effective revenue-maximizing rate at 68.7%, so I wouldn't mind moving closer to that. Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez place the top optimal statutory rate around 73%, some would go as far as 80%. I'd say 70% on income over, say, $10 million is fair.

Tell me, what number is enough?

I think 20% is excessive. But, I'm a libertarian. I here people go on and on about "fair shares", but they never define what a fair share is.

On to Diamond and Saez. Their work is... very weak. For instance, they only look at the short term behavioral effects of taxation and therefore underestimate the behavioral responses that become larger in the long run.

They also make some weird assumptions. They assume, for instance, that lawmakers are capable of closing all loopholes and deductions. Without that assumption, the revenue maximizing rate, according to Diamond and Saez is only about 48%. If we're talking about reality, that is the figure you should be citing.

What else?

They assume that the revenue maximizing rate is also the socially optimal rate. That seems rather absurd. Some people value income more than others. It seems that Diamond and Saez think that the only relevant factor when looking at the value of a dollar to an individual is that individual's income.

Here's an interesting paper on how individual preferences regarding income lower the optimal amount of redistribution:

http://www.people.hbs.edu...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 10:38:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 9:47:49 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:37:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:25:48 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:04:43 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 6:49:51 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:42:16 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 2:34:23 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 10:27:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:19:00 AM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 1:35:54 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:59:16 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Funny how Reich doesn't actually give a figure for how much the rich pay. It's funny because if he did, his entire argument would fall apart.

He pointed to regressive state taxes, but yes, he didn't provide a rate. How about I do that for you?

Exxon Mobile, GE, et al.: Negative
Mittens Romney: 14%
Warren Buffet: Less than 17.7%

Shall I go on?

Also it's curious that you're attacking Reich for not explicitly citing those figures but haven't yourself cited them. I know the numbers off-hand -- granted, I want you to point to them -- and there's plenty of evidence that the average member of top .1 percent has seen their wealth exponentially grow and their tax bills fall: that is simply a fact. If wealth trickled down, we'd already see the impact of it, yet we haven't, but were better off with a tax rate of -- gasp -- 91%.

I'm looking for a rate that the average 1%er pays. Not the rate that a few 1%ers that you pick out pays.

The BoP is on those claiming the rich aren't paying very much to show just that. I'm still waiting to see a figure on what the average 1%er pays as opposed to a few individuals.

Actually, you're the one who disputed Robert Reich's arguments and claimed there were facts that disputed his argument. You made the positive statement that Robert Reich was wrong, you're the one critiquing a renowned former labor secretary, and therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you think for one moment I'm going to simply let you in here to spew nonsense, pontificate, and espouse your horribly biased, misinformed opinion without any facts whatsoever than you are sadly mistaken. If you want to spout mythology, stick to the religion forum. Here, we deal with facts.

Wow. You are so wrong. Reich is making a positive claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share". The BoP is on him. Me pointing out that he has literally provided 0 evidence for his claim does not shift the BoP to me.

And, the irony here is that you are going on a rant about facts when you are unable or unwilling to provide any solid support for your claims.

Reich has extensively backed that point up in the past, and yes, he's addressing people who follow him -- i.e., people who are informed.

But even if we accept that a burden is on him, I am not wrong. You made the positive claim that Reich is wrong, but you provided nothing but empty BS. I wouldn't expect much more from a right-winger.

And, evidently you can't read, either. I provided an extensive amount of resources when jifpop asked -- you may want to go and read through those.


Yet you've offered no evidence on what the average rate is for the top 1%. It's almost as if you don't want to say it because people will realize that its already pretty high.

Once again, you have failed to offer any facts or even read through my sources. You're hopelessly grasping at straws.

No, it isn't high. The CBO placed it at 33.6 percent total federal effective tax rate (http://www.cbo.gov...). But, frankly, anyone with any basic knowledge of statistics will you that median is the best measure with such substantial outliers, since the top 1 percent begins at around $400,000 and extends to tens of billions ad infinitum. Many members of the top .1 percent, for instance, pay lower rates because much of their income is derived in capital gains.

You keep making these ridiculous baseless claims. You're the one who attacked Robert Reich as if there is some secret information


Ladies and gentleman. We finally have a number: 33.6%

To me and most sane people that seems pretty damn high.

But, if you think 33.6% is too low, what is enough?


Where are your facts? I keep asking you for facts. You have none.

Bear in mind that the outliers are massive, and there are a number of examples -- e.g., extremely profitable companies, which mind you pay an average corporate tax rate of about 19.4% (which isn't enough) -- of people paying less and state tax systems, as Reich points out, being highly, highly regressive.

Anyway, top tax rates from 1945-1980 were about 70-91% and the economy boomed, with effective rates around 52-58%. The studies that I linked to, that you have yet to read, place the top effective revenue-maximizing rate at 68.7%, so I wouldn't mind moving closer to that. Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez place the top optimal statutory rate around 73%, some would go as far as 80%. I'd say 70% on income over, say, $10 million is fair.


Tell me, what number is enough?

I told you: 70% top marginal rate, around a 56% or so effective rate.

I think 20% is excessive. But, I'm a libertarian. I here people go on and on about "fair shares", but they never define what a fair share is.

I just did.

On to Diamond and Saez. Their work is... very weak. For instance, they only look at the short term behavioral effects of taxation and therefore underestimate the behavioral responses that become larger in the long run.

I've read the paper, and I can tell you this isn't true at all. It'd be great if you could cite the specific passages. It's also a bit underwhelming for a relative unknown -- I mean no offense to you -- critiquing a Nobel Laureate without adequate data.

They also make some weird assumptions. They assume, for instance, that lawmakers are capable of closing all loopholes and deductions. Without that assumption, the revenue maximizing rate, according to Diamond and Saez is only about 48%. If we're talking about reality, that is the figure you should be citing.

Again, I haven't seen that figure. But my understanding is that their paper factors in existing loopholes. How would not closing deductions and loopholes lead to a lower revenue maximizing rate? It would need to be much higher, no?

What else?

They assume that the revenue maximizing rate is also the socially optimal rate. That seems rather absurd. Some people value income more than others. It seems that Diamond and Saez think that the only relevant factor when looking at the value of a dollar to an individual is that individual's income.

That's not an assumption, they made a case that it is -- and quite a compelling one, at that.

Here's an interesting paper on how individual preferences regarding income lower the optimal amount of redistribution:

http://www.people.hbs.edu...

It'd be great if you could cite the specific passages you're referring to. I don't have time to read through it in its entirety.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 10:38:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 9:47:49 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:


Tell me, what number is enough?

I told you: 70% top marginal rate, around a 56% or so effective rate.

Okay. Thank you. I wish progressives would be more straightforward and just say they want rich people to pay absurdly high tax rates. I appreciate it.


I think 20% is excessive. But, I'm a libertarian. I here people go on and on about "fair shares", but they never define what a fair share is.

I just did.

On to Diamond and Saez. Their work is... very weak. For instance, they only look at the short term behavioral effects of taxation and therefore underestimate the behavioral responses that become larger in the long run.

I've read the paper, and I can tell you this isn't true at all. It'd be great if you could cite the specific passages. It's also a bit underwhelming for a relative unknown -- I mean no offense to you -- critiquing a Nobel Laureate without adequate data.

I've also read the paper. And, I can assure you that they do not take into account the long term effects of taxation. More on that here:

http://www.nationalreview.com...

Also, the fact that Peter Diamond won a nobel for something totally unrelated to this is not relevant and does not mean his work cannot be critiqued. I can find nobel laureates who agree with me, but that alone doesn't prove my point.


They also make some weird assumptions. They assume, for instance, that lawmakers are capable of closing all loopholes and deductions. Without that assumption, the revenue maximizing rate, according to Diamond and Saez is only about 48%. If we're talking about reality, that is the figure you should be citing.

Again, I haven't seen that figure. But my understanding is that their paper factors in existing loopholes. How would not closing deductions and loopholes lead to a lower revenue maximizing rate? It would need to be much higher, no?

Think about it. If there are more deductions and loopholes, it is easier to change one's income (in form) to avoid taxation thus behavioral responses would be larger. Therefore, the revenue maximizing rate would be lower under a more realistic assumption that some deductions and loopholes stay.


What else?

They assume that the revenue maximizing rate is also the socially optimal rate. That seems rather absurd. Some people value income more than others. It seems that Diamond and Saez think that the only relevant factor when looking at the value of a dollar to an individual is that individual's income.

That's not an assumption, they made a case that it is -- and quite a compelling one, at that.

It's not compelling if you realize that income preferences are NOT homogeneous. It's not compelling if you realize that their assumption that the government is going to do such wonderful things with the money (which is their assumption once you get down to it) is absurd.


Here's an interesting paper on how individual preferences regarding income lower the optimal amount of redistribution:

http://www.people.hbs.edu...

It'd be great if you could cite the specific passages you're referring to. I don't have time to read

I read this paper a while ago. But, the relevant info is all in the abstract.
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 2:04:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem with piketty and saez is that they use .25 (a midpoint estimate of elasticity for all taxpayers) as the labor elasticity for the top 1%. However, the elasticity for the 1% is generally much higher than for the general population, with estimates ranging from .62 to 1.99.

Therefore the optimal rate for the top 1% in terms of short term revenue should much lower than where they put it. This is backed up historically as revenues from the rich have increased massively when marginal rates were cut, such as in the 20s and 80s. Also, the optimal rate for long term growth is probably much lower than that for short term revenue,

http://www.cato.org...
Pg. 26, 27.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 3:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 2:04:05 PM, HenryR wrote:
The problem with piketty and saez is that they use .25 (a midpoint estimate of elasticity for all taxpayers) as the labor elasticity for the top 1%. However, the elasticity for the 1% is generally much higher than for the general population, with estimates ranging from .62 to 1.99.

Therefore the optimal rate for the top 1% in terms of short term revenue should much lower than where they put it. This is backed up historically as revenues from the rich have increased massively when marginal rates were cut, such as in the 20s and 80s. Also, the optimal rate for long term growth is probably much lower than that for short term revenue,

http://www.cato.org...
Pg. 26, 27.

I hope you realize that citing the Cato Institute invalidated your entire argument.
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 3:35:11 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:04:05 PM, HenryR wrote:
The problem with piketty and saez is that they use .25 (a midpoint estimate of elasticity for all taxpayers) as the labor elasticity for the top 1%. However, the elasticity for the 1% is generally much higher than for the general population, with estimates ranging from .62 to 1.99.

Therefore the optimal rate for the top 1% in terms of short term revenue should much lower than where they put it. This is backed up historically as revenues from the rich have increased massively when marginal rates were cut, such as in the 20s and 80s. Also, the optimal rate for long term growth is probably much lower than that for short term revenue,

http://www.cato.org...
Pg. 26, 27.

I hope you realize that citing the Cato Institute invalidated your entire argument.

I hope you realize Diamond, Piketty, and Saez hardly went into their study lacking an ideological agenda, and I actually do think that applying the elasticity for all taxpayers to the 1% is incorrect and will lead to incorrect results. Again, also the optimal rate for short-term revenue is not necessarily the same for long-term growth.

I actually agree though on some of the points Robert Reich made, for instance reasons 1,2, and 3. However in regards to 4, the reason that the SS tax is capped is because the benefits are also capped. For reason 5, income is only saved to be spent later, so over the long term comprehensive sales taxes are not regressive.

There certainly are examples of where certain individuals and companies pay very little but overall Reich misrepresents the tax system, as the average tax rate paid by the top 1% is much higher than for other groups. I personally think that loopholes and privileges in the tax code should be repealed (incl. having long-term gains included in general income), but much lower rates (such as Paul Ryan's 10% and 25% rates, or a flat 15%) be implemented to encourage work and investment and reduce the return on lobbying for special favors in the tax system.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 4:29:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:22:01 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:35:11 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:04:05 PM, HenryR wrote:
The problem with piketty and saez is that they use .25 (a midpoint estimate of elasticity for all taxpayers) as the labor elasticity for the top 1%. However, the elasticity for the 1% is generally much higher than for the general population, with estimates ranging from .62 to 1.99.

Therefore the optimal rate for the top 1% in terms of short term revenue should much lower than where they put it. This is backed up historically as revenues from the rich have increased massively when marginal rates were cut, such as in the 20s and 80s. Also, the optimal rate for long term growth is probably much lower than that for short term revenue,

http://www.cato.org...
Pg. 26, 27.

I hope you realize that citing the Cato Institute invalidated your entire argument.

I hope you realize Diamond, Piketty, and Saez hardly went into their study lacking an ideological agenda, and I actually do think that applying the elasticity for all taxpayers to the 1% is incorrect and will lead to incorrect results. Again, also the optimal rate for short-term revenue is not necessarily the same for long-term growth.

The ideological agenda, if there was any with Diamond et al., was distinct; they're academics, and one holds a Nobel. They're not funded by the Koch brothers to spew absolute BS and prop up the affluent.

As for elasticity, I've seen plenty of studies saying otherwise, but it's a point of contention, at least. I've love if you could cite a non-Koch-funded group, though.

I actually agree though on some of the points Robert Reich made, for instance reasons 1,2, and 3. However in regards to 4, the reason that the SS tax is capped is because the benefits are also capped. For reason 5, income is only saved to be spent later, so over the long term comprehensive sales taxes are not regressive.

Benefits are capped, yes, but they're also not proportional to what you paid in, necessarily; some people get less, for instance. So this is simply adding a degree of progressivity to the system, since surely it is unfair that the effective payroll tax rate for a billionaire is significantly lower than the effective rate for a poor person.

Your point on 5 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're arguing that a sales tax -- which, mind you, accounts for a significantly larger percentage of a poor person's than a rich person's income -- isn't regressive? I don't even know how your case makes any sense whatsoever.

And, no, income isn't only saved to be spent. Some people are so affluent that they'll never physically be able to spend all of their savings -- hence the Cayman Islands bank accounts.

There certainly are examples of where certain individuals and companies pay very little but overall Reich misrepresents the tax system, as the average tax rate paid by the top 1% is much higher than for other groups. I personally think that loopholes and privileges in the tax code should be repealed (incl. having long-term gains included in general income), but much lower rates (such as Paul Ryan's 10% and 25% rates, or a flat 15%) be implemented to encourage work and investment and reduce the return on lobbying for special favors in the tax system.

The tax system is by and large progressive at the federal level, yes, save for capital gains income and corporate loopholes, etc., but most state systems are highly regressive, so your case is completely wrong.

Your second case is ridiculous -- lower tax rates do not 'encourage work and investment," and 34 years of trickle-down has shown us that. As for reducing the return on lobbying: again, you're wrong, because people lobby for more than just tax breaks. And, your case effectively is "let's reduce the impact of lobbying by giving them everything they want." Ultimately your argument is economically illiterate, illogical and conducive to nothing more than an even larger upward distribution of wealth.
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 1:17:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 4:29:41 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 4:22:01 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 4/14/2014 3:35:11 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/14/2014 2:04:05 PM, HenryR wrote:
The problem with piketty and saez is that they use .25 (a midpoint estimate of elasticity for all taxpayers) as the labor elasticity for the top 1%. However, the elasticity for the 1% is generally much higher than for the general population, with estimates ranging from .62 to 1.99.

Therefore the optimal rate for the top 1% in terms of short term revenue should much lower than where they put it. This is backed up historically as revenues from the rich have increased massively when marginal rates were cut, such as in the 20s and 80s. Also, the optimal rate for long term growth is probably much lower than that for short term revenue,

http://www.cato.org...
Pg. 26, 27.

I hope you realize that citing the Cato Institute invalidated your entire argument.

I hope you realize Diamond, Piketty, and Saez hardly went into their study lacking an ideological agenda, and I actually do think that applying the elasticity for all taxpayers to the 1% is incorrect and will lead to incorrect results. Again, also the optimal rate for short-term revenue is not necessarily the same for long-term growth.

The ideological agenda, if there was any with Diamond et al., was distinct; they're academics, and one holds a Nobel. They're not funded by the Koch brothers to spew absolute BS and prop up the affluent.

As for elasticity, I've seen plenty of studies saying otherwise, but it's a point of contention, at least. I've love if you could cite a non-Koch-funded group, though.

I actually agree though on some of the points Robert Reich made, for instance reasons 1,2, and 3. However in regards to 4, the reason that the SS tax is capped is because the benefits are also capped. For reason 5, income is only saved to be spent later, so over the long term comprehensive sales taxes are not regressive.

Benefits are capped, yes, but they're also not proportional to what you paid in, necessarily; some people get less, for instance. So this is simply adding a degree of progressivity to the system, since surely it is unfair that the effective payroll tax rate for a billionaire is significantly lower than the effective rate for a poor person.

Your point on 5 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're arguing that a sales tax -- which, mind you, accounts for a significantly larger percentage of a poor person's than a rich person's income -- isn't regressive? I don't even know how your case makes any sense whatsoever.

And, no, income isn't only saved to be spent. Some people are so affluent that they'll never physically be able to spend all of their savings -- hence the Cayman Islands bank accounts.

There certainly are examples of where certain individuals and companies pay very little but overall Reich misrepresents the tax system, as the average tax rate paid by the top 1% is much higher than for other groups. I personally think that loopholes and privileges in the tax code should be repealed (incl. having long-term gains included in general income), but much lower rates (such as Paul Ryan's 10% and 25% rates, or a flat 15%) be implemented to encourage work and investment and reduce the return on lobbying for special favors in the tax system.

The tax system is by and large progressive at the federal level, yes, save for capital gains income and corporate loopholes, etc., but most state systems are highly regressive, so your case is completely wrong.

Your second case is ridiculous -- lower tax rates do not 'encourage work and investment," and 34 years of trickle-down has shown us that. As for reducing the return on lobbying: again, you're wrong, because people lobby for more than just tax breaks. And, your case effectively is "let's reduce the impact of lobbying by giving them everything they want." Ultimately your argument is economically illiterate, illogical and conducive to nothing more than an even larger upward distribution of wealth.

Regardless of your ad hominem attacks, the point of the cato institute paper still stands in regards to diamond, piketty, and saez's work. And don't use arguments from authority (he's a Nobel so he must be right): Hayek, who you don't seem to think much of, won the Nobel as well as Diamond.

I completely that lobbying exists well beyond the tax code (although we probably take very different conclusions from that), but I disagree that reducing the incentive for lobbying is just giving special interests what they want, as they're interested in their relative advantage due to special priveleges. In other words, a company might well prefer a lower tax burden than their competitors to a lower rate for everybody. A low rate reduces the benefits of this lobbying for powerful special interests and the incentive to engage in it. The effect of marginal tax rate cuts are only one of many factors affecting the economy, but due to the strong growth in the periods after rate cuts they seem beneficial, and the microeconomic effects of marginal rates on decisions certainly carries into the operation of the economy as a whole, although it is only one of many other factors affecting the economy.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 2:18:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Regardless of your ad hominem attacks, the point of the cato institute paper still stands in regards to diamond, piketty, and saez's work. And don't use arguments from authority (he's a Nobel so he must be right): Hayek, who you don't seem to think much of, won the Nobel as well as Diamond.

I completely that lobbying exists well beyond the tax code (although we probably take very different conclusions from that), but I disagree that reducing the incentive for lobbying is just giving special interests what they want, as they're interested in their relative advantage due to special priveleges. In other words, a company might well prefer a lower tax burden than their competitors to a lower rate for everybody. A low rate reduces the benefits of this lobbying for powerful special interests and the incentive to engage in it. The effect of marginal tax rate cuts are only one of many factors affecting the economy, but due to the strong growth in the periods after rate cuts they seem beneficial, and the microeconomic effects of marginal rates on decisions certainly carries into the operation of the economy as a whole, although it is only one of many other factors affecting the economy.

First, don't use terminology you don't understand. It was not an ad hominem attack on Cato -- if I cited, let's say, "Americans for Progress' or some left-wing group, you'd rightfully be able to call me out on choosing biased sources. Of course, the difference is that my sources -- and, in fact, the left-wing version of David Koch, who is George Soros -- is that they involve people "lobbying" against their own economic interests. And, of course, they're backed by facts, whereas Koch-funded groups -- Americans for Prosperity, et al. -- are exceptional at putting out misinformation, be it about tax cuts, climate change, etc., because the Kochs, oil moguls obviously, have a direct incentive to shut down renewables. Cato is not only fallacious in several areas, but agenda-driven -- and that agenda is to perpetuate the perils of income inequality.

Also, you again have misrepresented my argument. Winning a Nobel does lend credence to Hayek, as well as it would Freidman, Krugman, Stiglitz, et al. But what you're missing is that there is no evidence that Diamond -- and, to be fair, Hayek as well -- is motivated by a financial incentive. I can't say the same for Cato. As for Hayek...well, history speaks for itself on him. His theories never stood up to those of Keynes and never will.

You're still missing the point on lobbying. They want lower taxes, so you're giving them lower taxes. And guess what? They're going to want even lower taxes from there, and this extends ad infinitum until they're, like Exxon and GE, getting rebates from the government after having paid nothing. And, not to mention, the logic is still the equivalent of saying to a robber, "Perhaps if I throw my furniture I'm intending to protect out on the street with a 'take this, I give up' sign, they'll have less to steal -- so victory is mine!"

And you carelessly assert that rate cuts lead to growth, though this has never happened. Ever. Despite what the Kochs say, trickle-down has never and will never work.

Here's the reality: we had rates between 70 and 91% -- the so-called Kennedy tax cuts of 1964 were, actually, demand-size tax cuts that dropped the top marginal tax rate down to 70% -- from 1945-1980, and had the longest period of growth in the history, most of which was in the 50s under Eisenhower. Tight regulation of the financial sector, extensive public investment in infrastructure and education, etc. were key. Reagan came into office in 1980, dropped the top rate from 70% to 50%, and unemployment soared to 10.8% in 1981 -- granted, this was because of three years of disinflation, and has to do largely with Fed policy, but the tax cuts didn't mitigate it. Then he raised taxes a grand total of 11 times, and the economy boomed in 83' IN SPITE of a tax hike -- again, because of monetary policy, but you get the hint. And, of course, he was a massive Keynesian vis-a-vis Obama -- record deficits, record percent increase in government spending, massive military buildup, more federal employees than Obama ,etc. etc. If trickle-down had any validity to it whatsoever, we'd see the effects of it -- even Stephen Moore of Heritage admitted that Obama has effectively invoked Reagan.

And I just realized I forgot to mention the non-factor of the Bush tax cuts -- 90% of which Mr. Obama extended. Well, you get the point.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:18:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 4:32:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
The top 1% make 13% of all income and pay 22% of taxes.(http://m.washingtontimes.com...)

Seems fair to me.

What seems fair is not always whats right. I'm making a forum soon that will disprove the statements that conservatism is fair, free, and constitutional.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party