View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 31st, 2014, 2:21 am



Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Years 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11968
Post Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Years
Kind of interesting....(granted I couldn't tell you how accurate it is, just find it interesting)

Quote:
Shifting Burdens
U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Years
by Stephen Von Worley on March 15, 2011

The tax man cometh, and to illustrate the inequities of his cleft-hoofed embrace, we’ve charted the shift in U.S. income taxes from rich to poor over the past century:

Image

That’s a line for every year from 1913 onward, sized and colored by the tax burden: the amount of tax due relative to the long-term average at each income level. Above-average burdens appear thick and red and below-average thin and blue. We adjusted everything for inflation to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison, with the caveat that the effects of Social Security, Medicare, and other taxes are not included. The underlying data comes from The Tax Foundation, IRS, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is the same information we used in last year’s bracket graph, updated for 2011.

Our graph shows a series of tax regimes. Overall, taxes stayed low until 1940, spiked during World War II, remained high through the Korean conflict, and eased slightly in the mid ’60s. From there, they held steady, until President Carter emancipated poverty-level wagemakers with his tax-free under-$8000 bracket, creating the blue wedge in our graph. Three years later, Reagan entered office and began turning the tables, finishing in 1988 with his retrograde 28% upper rate. The rich were now on tax vacation, at the expense of the poor and middle class.

A modified Reagan-era tax system lingers to this day. To his credit, Dubya did reduce taxes on very low earners, so they’re no longer getting hammered. But, the people at our economy’s core – the full-time workers earning between $20,000 and $150,000 a year – still pay at up to double the rate of the ultra-wealthy, relative to what history suggests they should.

About this, I’ve got mixed feelings. More than a few of my friends have hit the dot-com-Web-2.0 jackpot, and every spring, they enjoy a fresh tax windfall. And why not? They worked hard, created value, got paid, and dadgummit, isn’t that what capitalism is all about?

On the other hand, so that the American Dream doesn’t degenerate further into a have-or-have-not nightmare, perhaps some social pragmatism is in order. Via a small dose of fiscal self-sacrifice, the fat cats can maintain their grip on the reins. Or, they can stay the course – and keep on partying like it’s 1999 – until an angry mob bursts through the front door, drags them down to the town square, and lops their wealth off.

http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/rela ... 1913-2011/


Any tax pros here that can confirm/deny this info/data???

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 24th, 2011, 4:37 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
I think the main thing to ask from this data, what is good and what is bad? Why did it work and why didn't it? Change isn't always good and change isn't always bad.

I think it is dangerous for peolpe to look at what we are doing now, look at what happened during a different era, and then determine what the corrective solution is.

One thing that is interesting in the article, is that they act like the ration between the wealthy and the middle class in important when the best years of America had a higher relative % of tax to the poor than the rich. No one likes to point that out...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 24th, 2011, 4:44 pm
Profile
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
I would like to see how they figure "as relative to your bracket."

To the best of my knowledge people making over 250k per year enter into a higher tax bracket. How they can play less taxes than someone making $150k is beyond me. Sure, they can invest their money, place it into a tax shelter (home), etc., but those things help the economy (buying expensive houses gives profits to the banks, increases the value of other houses, etc.). I understand the point that they are making, but i don't see how it pans out the way they say it does.

If the real problem is "effective tax rate" (meaning, the amount that they actually have to pay, vs. the amount that they're said to pay), perhaps they should lower the tax % and close some of the loopholes.


March 24th, 2011, 4:49 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
And the middle class are the ones that get screwed again. The problem, as I see it, is the ridiculous tax code that offers too many breaks and loopholes. The poor qualify for refunds beyond what they paid, while the rich have the resources to take advantage of the system. Meanwhile, the middle class makes too much to qualify for the lower income tax breaks, but not quite enough to invest in the things they can write off.

This is why we need a flat tax with only a personal and dependent deduction. For simplicity sake, let's say it's 10% with a $10,000 personal and dependent deduction. A family of four earning $40K or less wouldn't owe any taxes, but they wouldn't get additional money back either. A single guy making $20K would owe $1,000, while an unmarried millionaire would pay $99K. What's fair is fair and it eliminates any special interests.

Similar rules would also apply to businesses. Just this week it was reported that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. They took advantage of every loophole, shelter, and subsidy known to man to avoid owing anything. That's just criminal IMO. This happens while the small businesses, which fuel our economy, are paying up to a 35% corporate tax (the 2nd highest in the world behind Japan), but not having the ability to game the system like GE has done. It's time to level the playing field. Why should Pop's General Store pay 35% to the government, while GE or any other corporation pay nothing? Make them both pay 10% and the special interests be damned. Cut all subsidies while you're at it too. If a company can't survive on it's own without government assistance, they don't need to be in business in the first place.

_________________
Image


March 26th, 2011, 12:55 pm
Profile
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
I'm all for a flat tax, and I don't even mind the progressive tax, as long as it works. I don't mind the "haves" paying more than the "have nots," but I think it is ridiculous that these "loopholes" exist that get people entirely out of paying taxes, or paying such a small percentage that they're virtually paying nothing.

IMO 35-40% is the high end of fair. Some on the Left think that rich people should pay 50-60%. I think that's ridiculous. It would be nice, however, if we could make sure that they were at least paying their 35%.

Some tax breaks are understandable, and, IMO, some actually work to stimulate the economy. However, this ridiculous tax code that changes every year, and has expiring provisions, free golf carts, free planes, tax breaks for this and that, blah blah blah is beyond ridiculous.

That GE made something like $14 billion in profit last year, and paid ZERO in taxes sickens me. I guess it's nice to be a company that sits at the right hand of the administration... It cracks me up that Democrats push for higher taxes and businesses that are friendly to their cause pay nothing....


March 26th, 2011, 3:08 pm
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
Read this bullsh!t:


http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exx ... xes_2.html


March 26th, 2011, 3:11 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
I find it funny that most liberals refer to conservatives as pro corporation. While I'm not a "pure" conservative since I have some libertarian leanings, I've never been much of a fan of the huge mega-corporations. If anything, I'm a huge small business supporter that sees corporations as an impediment to their success. I don't want to see "widgets" being made by only 5 multinational conglomerates. Instead, I would prefer that the"widgets" were made by hundreds of small businesses and allow the free market to decide who succeeds and who fails based upon price, quality, and service.

The huge conglomerate entities like GE just piss me off, much like the "too big to fail" banks. They started off making appliances, but then expanded into energy, entertainment, finance, insurance, etc. At what point does a corporation grow too big over many different sectors that it becomes powerful enough to avoid paying taxes? That's insane. While I'm not a fan of most government regulation, perhaps they should restrict publicly traded companies from becoming multi-industry monsters like GE. I know there are laws in place to prevent things like this from happening, but they obviously aren't working. I have no issue with corporations like GM (in it's heyday) or Microsoft becoming big and powerful by doing one thing and doing it well, but when they expand over multiple industries, there is a problem.

What I'm trying to convey here is that there isn't a level playing field between the "big boys" and the "little guy". The business taxes in this country are too damn high to where small businesses struggle to survive, while the corporations lobby their way into paying no taxes through incentives, subsidies, and loopholes. That needs to end by lowering the corporate tax rate and eliminating the crap that GE is using to avoid paying taxes.

_________________
Image


March 26th, 2011, 6:34 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2631
Post Re: Shifting Burdens: U.S. Taxes By Income Level Over The Ye
Generally speaking, the large conglomerates only exist because of government regulations, and 9/10 whenever there's a new piece of regulatory legislation, its written by the lobbyists hired by the biggest firms in the particular industry to be regulated.

The flat tax would be a step in the right direction, but we really need massive tax reform all around.


March 27th, 2011, 4:28 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.