50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says - CBS News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 weeks ago  •  135 comments

By:   Aimee Picchi (cbsmoneywatch)

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says - CBS News
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Aimee Picchi

December 17, 2020 / 12:43 PM / MoneyWatch

cbsn-fusion-bipartisan-group-of-senators-unveil-covid-19-relief-bills-thumbnail-609286-640x360.jpg Bipartisan senators unveil COVID relief bills...49:53

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.

The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.

Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't, the study found.

But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.

"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."


In our piece for @ConversationUK, David Hope and I argue that governments should not give undue concern to the economic consequences of taxing the rich when deciding how to pay for COVID-19. https://t.co/MRgnX8JfmH
— Julian Limberg (@JulianLimberg) December 16, 2020

Because the analysis ends in 2015, the research doesn't include President Donald Trump's massive tax overhaul, which he signed into law in late 2017 and which slashed taxes for the rich and corporations while providing a moderate cut for the middle class. But Limberg, who co-authored the study with David Hope, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics' International Inequalities Institute, said that he wouldn't expect the results of that tax cut to be much different.

Already, Mr. Trump's tax cuts have lifted the fortunes of the ultra-rich, according to 2019 research from two prominent economists, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley. For the first time in a century, the 400 richest American families paid lower taxes in 2018 than people in the middle class, the economists found.

The "careful" new research from the London School Economics "suggests indeed that tax increases on the wealthy should be considered post-COVID," Berkeley's Zucman said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch.

Engine for stronger economic growth?


To be sure, the economy was humming along before the pandemic struck the nation in March, with an unemployment rate that was at its lowest in about half a century. Conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute pointed to Mr. Trump's tax cuts as an engine for stronger economic growth.

Yet even so, millions of American families struggled to find jobs that paid living wages, while the cost of essentials such as health care, housing and education increased at far faster rates than the typical income. Even before the pandemic, income inequality had reached its highest point in 50 years, according to Census data.

In 2020, the pandemic has worsened inequities across all spectrums, touching racial, gender and educational divides. When the economy shut down in March, workers who couldn't transition to remote work — typically lower-paid employees involved in retail, service and hospitality jobs — were hit the hardest.

At the same time, white-collar workers generally fared better as they were more likely to maintain their jobs as they shifted to remote work. Investors also benefited as the stock market rallied on hopes for an economic recovery — a development that doesn't help most low- and middle-class workers. Only about half the U.S. population is invested in the stock market through their retirement and savings accounts, and even then more than 80% of all stocks are owned by the richest 10%.


BREAKING: U.S. billionaires have grown their collective wealth by $1 trillion since mid-March. That's more than it would cost to send a $3,000 stimulus check to every person in America.
More of our latest research here: https://t.co/wvfXxl92yKpic.twitter.com/sYgDKiuW70
— Americans For Tax Fairness (@4TaxFairness) December 9, 2020

Since the pandemic began, the combined wealth of America's 651 billionaires has jumped by more than $1 trillion, reaching $4 trillion in early December, Americans for Tax Fairness said earlier this month.

Meanwhile, almost 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the start of the pandemic through November, according to new data released by the University of Chicago and the University of Notre Dame.

Rebuilding the economy and household wealth for low- and middle-class families are among the issues facing President-elect Joe Biden after he's inaugurated next month. Raising taxes on the rich and corporations could provide trillions of dollars in resources for helping the economic recovery, Zucman told CBS MoneyWatch.

"This is not only a viable option, but also a fair option, because some of the wealthiest taxpayers have benefited from the pandemic — for instance large corporations such as Amazon and their shareholders," he noted. "These taxpayers could reasonably be asked to pay more to make up for pandemic losses."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
1  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

I could have told you that without the fancy study...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

So raising taxes on the few hundred really rich in this country is somehow supposed to help level the playing field. As for corporations, they don't taxes, they only collect them and pass the increases on, and raise prices for their products.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2    3 weeks ago
So raising taxes on the few hundred really rich in this country is somehow supposed to help level the playing field.

You are being dishonest with that statement.  Any raising of taxes on the wealthy would only bring them up to the same taxation as everyone else, which is the definition of "leveling the playing field".

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    3 weeks ago
Any raising of taxes on the wealthy would only bring them up to the same taxation as everyone else, which is the definition of "leveling the playing field".

Totally ridiculous and false statement. About 42% pay no income taxes. So saying it would "level the playing field" is incorrect.

The rich may pay a lower percentage of their income as taxes, but the dollar amount is a lot more. Do you want everyone to pay the same percentage of their income as taxes, or the same dollar amount? Or do you want something different for the rich?

 
 
 
Ender
2.2  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2    3 weeks ago

It is a shame then that with lower taxes goods and services didn't see a price cut.

Funny how that works huh. Raise taxes and we will raise prices, meanwhile lower taxes and we will keep prices the same, of course they will still go up a little.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @2.2    3 weeks ago

Things are a lot more expensive now than 20 years ago. I used to be able to buy groceries for a family of 4 and walk out of the grocery store with 3 bags and spent 30-45 dollars. Today I buy groceries for 2, walk out of the store with 2 bags and spend at least 50 bucks

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.2    3 weeks ago

Welcome to "Reality 101" 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2.2    3 weeks ago
Raise taxes and we will raise prices, meanwhile lower taxes and we will keep prices the same, of course they will still go up a little.

if one wishes for wages to rise, and for shareholders to see a decent return on their investments, of course prices will rise.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.4  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

Yep, the reality that 'trickle down' is fabrication.

 
 
 
Ender
2.2.5  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    3 weeks ago

Funny that, I think I read they don't include things like buying groceries in the living index.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @2.2.5    3 weeks ago

Oh...REALLY????

No wonder some seem to think our standard of living is higher than it was 60 years ago!

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.7  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

Welcome to "Reality 101" 

Some more of that, "Reality 101"... 

You pay more in taxes than most billionaires. That's gotta feel good come April. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

The problem is we haven't seen wages rise. Prices have increased, as have investor returns, but wages have remained stagnant and buying power for the average person has reduced. It is not a sustainable system. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.9  gooseisgone  replied to  Ender @2.2    2 weeks ago
Raise taxes and we will raise prices, meanwhile lower taxes and we will keep prices the same,

Taxes aren't the only expense of the business and in many cases not even a major expense. You do tend to see gas prices go down when oil prices are lower. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.10  gooseisgone  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.7    2 weeks ago
You pay more in taxes than most billionaires. That's gotta feel good come April. 

You need to get into the real estate business it is very tax friendly. 

 
 
 
Krishna
2.3  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @2    2 weeks ago
they don't taxes,

Indeed.

However, all too many "do loopholes"!!!

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2    2 weeks ago

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. 

800

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.4.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MrFrost @2.4    2 weeks ago

Nailed it. In my post below I more or less said exactly this using myself as an example. The money I got from the recent tax cuts has gone straight into investment accounts and trust funds for the girls.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3  Dean Moriarty    3 weeks ago

Sounds good to me. If not for the financial incentive I never would have put so much effort into climbing the ladder of success. 

I see the workers paradise of Cuba has greater income equality but it doesn’t appeal to me. 

 
 
 
JBB
3.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3    3 weeks ago

If you had $10,000 for every day since 1776 it would not equal one billion dollars. Our tax code has made the super richer beyond reason. < 1 percent owning > 90 percent of wealth is unsustainable!

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  JBB @3.1    2 weeks ago
1 percent owning > 90 percent of wealth is unsustainable!

There are plenty of Liberal Democrats who are multi million and billionaires why haven't they just given their wealth to the government, there is nothing stopping them.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3    2 weeks ago

Pretty sure this wasn't about capitalism as a system of economics dude, but rather about government taxation policies that favor the already wealthy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

Without the super rich to degrade, tax, and pay for their social "justice" schemes, what would Democrats do?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4    3 weeks ago
Without the super rich to degrade, tax, and pay for their social "justice" schemes, what would Democrats do?

They aren't being degraded, they are being rewarded.

They aren't being taxed.  Remember, a certain self-claimed billionaire only payed $750 in taxes for 1 year and $0 for most of the others.

I don't know what a "social justice scheme" is, but middle class is paying for more government spending that the wealthy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    3 weeks ago
They aren't being degraded, they are being rewarded.

The posts I have seen here tell a really different, truer story than the fantasy you imagine.

They aren't being taxed.  Remember, a certain self-claimed billionaire only payed $750 in taxes for 1 year and $0 for most of the others.

They are being taxed, I don't see why people insist in perpetuating this massive myth.

Had you bothered to look up what percentage of taxes are collected from which tax brackets, you would have found that out.

I don't know what a "social justice scheme" is, but middle class is paying for more government spending that the wealthy.

That seems perfectly logical to me, seeing as how there are millions more middle class than super-rich.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    3 weeks ago

Remember, a certain self-claimed billionaire only payed $750 in taxes for 1 year and $0 for most of the others.

All  perfectly legal.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
All perfectly legal.

And miserably unethical. Do we care about ethics?

Do we care that a billionaire pays practically no taxes?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

Why on earth do you think any person anywhere is going to pay more in taxes than they owe?

And what in heck is unethical about paying what one owes?

That is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Define "owe".

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
And miserably unethical

Do you take legal deductions?

If you do, then by your logic, you also are being unethical.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

You need to learn the meaning of "ethical".

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

Owe--what the government has determined they owe.

You know damn well what it means.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

My question was for bugsy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

Okay, hard to tell that when addressed to him.

Happy New Year!

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
You need to learn the meaning of "ethical"

Of course I know what it means. Quite possibly you need to learn what Webster's is and look into it.

The question you posed was this...

"And miserably unethical. Do we care about ethics?"

With this you are implying Trump's legal tax deductions are unethical, so, I ask you again...

If you take legal tax deductions, by your logic, would you not consider yourself unethical.

There is no other way to explain your post.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
My question was for bugsy.

You asked Texan what the definition of owe "was".

He answered you.

I strongly suggest you get a dictionary.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
If you take legal tax deductions, by your logic, would you not consider yourself unethical.

So... we probably should start a list... Thus far, you need to learn "ethics" and "logic".

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

why can't you just answer what you were asked instead of skating all over the place?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Some questions don't deserve to be answered.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.15    2 weeks ago
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Completely asinine.

Some questions don't deserve to be answered.

And some DO.

Like why is it unethical in your opinion that someone pays what they legally owe, but you are ethical for paying what you owe?

Does that really make sense to you?

You can treat my questions as rhetorical since you don't wish to engage in this.

Why are you here?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.16    2 weeks ago
Like why is it unethical in your opinion that someone pays what they legally owe, but you are ethical for paying what you owe?

Makin' shit up again...  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.17    2 weeks ago

Not at all--just going by what I see, Bob.

That can happen when you accuse others of doing the same exact thing as you do and call them unethical. The normal thing to do would be to consider both parties unethical or both parties ethical.

Not calling others unethical because you merely don't like them.

That is just laziness.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

Keep trying, Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.19    2 weeks ago

No need to now after having already called you out on your hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.20    2 weeks ago

Keep trying...

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

No need to now after having already called you out on your hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    2 weeks ago

Keep trying...

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

sigh.

once again, no need to after having already called you out on your hypocrisy.

now, please, take the last words.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.25  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
So... we probably should start a list... Thus far, you need to learn "ethics" and "logic".

Bob, you really need to learn to quit while you're behind. You are looking like a liberal.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.25    2 weeks ago

Look, bugsy... I kindly warned you that you were misusing these words. But that doesn't mean I care whether you make the (fairly small) effort to learn to use them. Your worry...

I feel kinda insulted by "liberal". I'm s-o-o-o much further left than that.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.27  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.26    2 weeks ago
I kindly warned you that you were misusing these words

You did't "kindly" warn me of anything. You called me a lair, but yet, you have never answered the question that if you legally took deductions on your taxes (if you pay them at all), then do you consider yourself unethical.

You can't and won't answer.

As far as being far more left than liberal, your radical, uneducated posts on here makes me have to believe you.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.27    2 weeks ago
You can't and won't answer.

Of course I won't. It's a loaded question... a semantic trap... a dishonest ploy.

If you want to discuss something... then you need to avoid this kind of behavior. If you want answers, you must not load your questions. You must open them.

(Since I'm an eternal optimist, I'll recognize that you may have spent so much time learning "how to own the libs" from our NT neo-fascist wordsmiths, that you no longer know how to maintain an honest conversation. In a way, you're caught in their web. But hey! That's your problem. If you want out, it's up to you to make an effort.)

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.29  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.28    2 weeks ago

Exactly how is it a loaded question.

You said Trump paying his taxes were unethical. You have zero evidence of such and the only thing being reported truthfully is he took deductions LEGALLY.

So, with that being said, again, you are asked.

If you say Trump paying his taxes legally, and you take the deductions you take legally, are you being unethical?

Not a loaded question, you just understand how wrong you are and fail to acknowledge it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.29    2 weeks ago
Exactly how is it a loaded question.

Let's take a look...

You said Trump paying his taxes were unethical.

No, I did not say that. You really, really, REALLY need to stop reformulating. You completely lose track of what was actually said at the origin. And then you ask imperious questions, based on your erroneous memory.

If you say Trump paying his taxes legally, and you take the deductions you take legally, are you being unethical?

That question makes no sense, logically or semantically. But here you are, making a big brouhaha about it. 

If you want a genuine conversation, you must not try to manipulate it. 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.31  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.30    2 weeks ago

Sigh...

This was Greg's post originally, responding to 4.1.1

"

Remember, a certain self-claimed billionaire only payed $750 in taxes for 1 year and $0 for most of the others.

All  perfectly legal.

This is your response

All perfectly legal.

And miserably unethical. Do we care about ethics?

This is my response to you

And miserably unethical

Do you take legal deductions?

If you do, then by your logic, you also are being unethical.

Do you see it now?

You claimed Trump taking legal deductions is unethical. I responded by saying that if you take legal deductions, then, by your logic, you must also be unethical.

So, show me where the manipulation of responded directly to your post  is.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
Do you take legal deductions? If you do, then by your logic, you also are being unethical.

That affirmation is unsupported. In my opinion, it cannot be deduced logically from what was said earlier. I think it's based on your erroneous interpretation of my post, but I can't be sure because you never explained how you deduced that affirmation.

This is kinda the same problem as your reformulations. You got this wrong... without realizing it. Since you never asked if I agreed with your premise, I let you continue on into the weeds. You were being aggressive, so why would I save your bacon?

---

What do you want to do, here on NT? If you want to "score points" or "own the libs", just continue. You are the unique judge of your success or failure.

If you want to exchange... converse... dialogue... you need to learn to get the other person's accord, as you go along.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.32    2 weeks ago

Okay, then what DID you "mean" with your post stating this:

And miserably unethical. Do we care about ethics? Do we care that a billionaire pays practically no taxes?

If not Trump, who were you referring to?

Do you consider people who follow the tax code to be unethical?

If so, why?

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.34  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
Trump taking legal deductions

The big question is just how ethical Trump is. 

Pretty sure Trump thinks illegal is just a sick bird.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.35  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.33    2 weeks ago

My post was addressed to bugsy. I think he might be interested in serious conversation.

I'm sure you are not, so you needn't expect an answer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.35    2 weeks ago

That's swell, Bob, and expected.

Some fine folks just like to accuse others of not engaging when they refuse to do so themselves.

I knew it was too tough anyways.

Explaining your own words--or changing them after you wrote them.

Hmm..which is tougher?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.37  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

           jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.38  bugsy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.35    2 weeks ago
I think he might be interested in serious conversation.

I've been trying to engage in serious conversation, but you constantly try and avoid the question I asked of you.

If you think Trump legally paying taxes with legally taken deductions is unethical, then are you also unethical for taking deductions and paying the taxes you legally own.

Simple yes or no

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.39  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @4.1.34    2 weeks ago
The big question is just how ethical Trump is. 

Well, that's not the question.

A little refresher...

If you say Trump paying his taxes legally, and you take the deductions you take legally, are you being unethical?

A simple yes or no is sufficient.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.1.39    2 weeks ago

I guess you have stumped everyone.

Maybe ask something easier?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.41  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.40    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.38    2 weeks ago
If you think ... Simple yes or no

This is a good example. Your question has, roughly, nothing to do with what I've said... and yet you are requiring a yes-or-no.

That is not serious conversation.

Let me re-start:

Is it ethical for a billionaire to pay just a few hundred dollars in taxes?

Note that the question does not mention the law or deductions... and does not apply to me. (I'm not a billionaire.)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.43  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @4.1.41    2 weeks ago
OK...here's one Bob or his friends might be able to answer.....

OK... This makes it pretty clear that your purpose here is not serious conversation. Let me know if that changes. Until then, you're off my radar.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.44  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.35    2 weeks ago
"My post was addressed to bugsy. I think he might be interested in serious conversation."

She's not.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.45  gooseisgone  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
And miserably unethical. Do we care about ethics?

Have you had this conversation with Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey to name a few.  If you don't like the tax laws tell your congress people to change them. There is NOTHING UNETHICAL ABOUT PAYING THE TAXES YOU OWE!   

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.46  bugsy  replied to  gooseisgone @4.1.45    2 weeks ago

According to most liberals, a conservative paying legal taxes based on legal deductions is unethical, but if you have a D next to your name, anything goes.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5  Trout Giggles    3 weeks ago

Quelle surprise!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

The standard of living for everyone is much higher than it was 50 years ago.....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    3 weeks ago

Sean, you could not be more wrong. In 1960 the average salary in the US was $5,600. Adjusted for inflation, equals $49,736.60. In 2019 the average salary was $48,672, so we actually lost buying power. 

.

.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    3 weeks ago

he standard of living for everyone is much higher than it was 50 years ago.....

Food costs  take up less than half as much of the average persons expenses as they did in 1960.

but by all means, you live on 49,000 and spend twice on food, and buy services and products at 1960 standards, and I’ll happily live on 48,000 with 2020 products

heres a good primer of how more discretionary income Americans now have that they didn’t before,.  



 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    3 weeks ago

Your criterion is intrinsically skewed. Revenues in the US are so unequal as to make "average" meaningless. "Median" is somewhat better, but still inadequate.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Those are just charts on what we spend on and no where does it say we have more discretionary income. In fact, it says:

So if the typical American family feels squeezed, what's squeezing us?

I have two answers: The first answer is housing and cars. Half of that orange "other" slice is transportation costs: mostly cars, gas, and public transit. A century ago, if you recall, 80% of families were renters and nobody owned a car. Today, more than 60% of families are home owners, and practically everybody owns a car.*

The other answer, which you can't see as clearly in this chart, is health care. Health-care spending makes up more than 16% of the U.S. economy, but only 6% of family spending, according to the CES. One reason for the gap is that most medical spending isn't out of our pockets. Employers pay workers' premiums and government foots the bill for the elderly and the low-income. Government spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid has quadrupled since the 1950s in the most meaningful measurement, which is share of GDP.

In short, health care costs are squeezing Americans. But the details of this squeeze elude the color-wheel above. We are paying for health care with taxes, borrowing, and compensation that goes to health benefits, rather than wages.

Once again, you have not addressed the fact that real income has not increased at all. In fact, it has gone down. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Bob, my number from the 1960's was the median income. Median income in 2018 was $63,179.

.

Heck, we can do the mode if you want to, which is probably the most accurate, which is where people cluster at.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

OK... I misunderstood.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    3 weeks ago

What does "standard of living" have to do with income inequality? 

We should have a wealth tax.  First 50 million dollars doesn't get this tax. For every dollar above 50 million you pay 3 % per year.  Over 1 billion is 4 percent per year.  

Capital gains should be taxed as regular income. 

There should be a small tax on every Wall St transaction.  

All of these changes would provide many billions of dollars to provide needed programs to improve the lives of working people, and would not effect the lifestyles of the wealthy at all. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    3 weeks ago

Sure, lets tax people for saving and/or investing their own money because someone has decided that they have too much.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

Investing is not work.  People who make their money in a non productive way should be taxed higher. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    3 weeks ago

How about we just charge 1/2 a percent over 50 million and a full percent on 1 billion. We don't need to get greedy. Even with that this country could fund universal health care

And capital gains should be taxed as regular income, I agree with that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

Investing is not work--in YOUR opinion.

if your way was true, then you just invest wildly, without research. Good move.

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.5  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

What always makes me shake my head is the people defending the ultra wealthy (like they need it) when they will never be in the same position.

Useful idiots is what I believe they use to call them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @6.2.5    3 weeks ago

Not so useful idiots is more like it.  Like the wealthy are going to send some of their money to them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.3    3 weeks ago
How about we just charge 1/2 a percent over 50 million and a full percent on 1 billion.

Thats not gonna work. As it is the proposal is only to tax wealth over 50 million. The first 50 million doesnt get taxed. So someone has 51 million. They would be paying 1/2 a percent on one million.  That is a skimpy "wealth tax". 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    3 weeks ago

You're driving away the incentive to make money, John. What about Jeff Bezos? Imagine how much money he would pay in a wealth tax. You take too much away from him and he's liable to just say fuck it, why bother working to make more or investing to make more?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.8    3 weeks ago

You are serious? 

Someone who has 2 billion dollars would pay 4 percent tax on the second billion.  How much of the second billion would be left after the tax ?     $960,000,000.  

A society is under no obligation to let people accrue unlimited wealth, at least not without taxing it at the highest levels. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.9    3 weeks ago

I stand corrected. I didn't do my math homework.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.9    3 weeks ago

I don't know. People like to hold up Jeff Bezos as an example of this. But how would this really work.

Bezos is worth approx $200 Billion based on current stock values. That changes daily so when is it calculated. A 4 percent tax on $200 billion is approx $8 billion. So where is he gonna sell enough stock to raise that kind of money because selling that much stock will devalue the entire worth so that needs to also be calculated in. After all, it's not like he has that $200 billion just stuffed under his mattress in large bills.

Why did countries that tried to tax wealth stop doing so?  Because it wasn't working and ending up driving more money out of the country than the country would raise. In 1990 twelve European countries had a wealth tax, today only four counties still do. The others dropped it because it was too easy to avoid the tax by moving your money out of the country. The plans by Warren and Sanders rely more on citizenship than place of residence, but one has to ask why they would put so much energy into a proposal that is easy to avoid, has not proven anywhere in the world to bring in the kind of money envisioned and stands a good 50% chance of being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.8    3 weeks ago
Imagine how much money he would pay in a wealth tax.

I doubt he'd pay anything at all. His lawyers will find loopholes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    3 weeks ago
What does "standard of living" have to do with income inequality? 

Standard of living is much more important than "income inequality."   Jealousy doesn't really kill people.   

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.18  Bob Nelson  replied to    2 weeks ago
Letting people keep the money they earn really burns some peoples ass.

Jeff Bezos "earned" $ 200 000 000 000?

Seriously?

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.21  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 weeks ago

Reduce/eliminate government waste and there will be less need to increase taxes.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.22  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

Quite the contrary John, people work hard to make enough money to invest and then insuring their investments are where they want them to be.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.23  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.18    2 weeks ago

Just charge him a 90% tax on his annual worth and not allow any loopholes.

That should satisfy those agree on a wealth tax.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.23    2 weeks ago

Your Comment was probably a clumsy attempt at "owning a lib", but just in case your understanding is really that poor...

A tax on revenue would be most efficient with a top bracket at about 70%. 

A tax on wealth would be most efficient with a top bracket at about 5%.

Do you need clarification on the difference between the two?

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.26  Snuffy  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.22    2 weeks ago

Absolutely true. Unless you're among the group that believes the government should care for you from cradle to grave...

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.27  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.24    2 weeks ago
A tax on revenue would be most efficient with a top bracket at about 70%. 

You're citing the ideals of the Green New Deal but history shows that it really didn't work that way.  While the statutory rates have been that high or higher in the past, the effective tax rate where nowhere close to that. The rich and powerful work with their allies in Congress to get loopholes inserted into tax code which allows them to save on their taxes,  or they look to offshore the money and take it out of the reach of the taxman. 

A tax on wealth would be most efficient with a top bracket at about 5%.

In 1990 there were 12 European countries that had a wealth tax, today there are only 4. I believe it would be even harder to set up in the USA as any wealth tax has a better than 50% chance of being found unconstitutional by SCOTUS. 

In addition, a lot of that wealth is held in property or stocks. Very few of the rich have millions in cash just lying around. So property would need to be sold to pay the tax man which means you have to find people willing to buy that property. As the people who can afford to purchase that property are other rich people who are having to pay their own "wealth" taxes how willing would they be to increase their "wealth' with property that then needs to be sold again to pay taxes. So unless your plan is for the government to take the property and own it themselves not sure where this will go.

And IMO government has never proven trustworthy with managing money. How much money is taken in annually and wasted? Increasing the cash flow to government has seldom resulted in the same large cash flow to the people.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.28  Bob Nelson  replied to    2 weeks ago

I'll tell you how much I earn when Donald Trump volunteers his tax returns.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.27    2 weeks ago
history shows that it really didn't work that way

Actually... that was the rate during WWII, when the American economy was doing the best it has ever done.

In 1990 there were 12 European countries that had a wealth tax, today there are only 4.

... which proves that the wealthy can buy political clout. It proves nothing about the efficacity of the tax.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.28    2 weeks ago

He didn't ask what you earned, he asked what tax bracket you fall in.

For all he knows, you could make lots of money off stocks, which you seem to think isn't earning.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.31  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.29    2 weeks ago
Actually... that was the rate during WWII, when the American economy was doing the best it has ever done.

yes, 70% was the statutory rate but was not the effective rate. The effective rate was between 35% & 37% and there were loads of loopholes and exemptions that everybody could use. As Congress changed tax code they eliminated a lot of loopholes as they brought the statutory rate down. I don't believe the statutory rate could go back up to 70% again. One thing these plans never identify is what about state and local taxes. Raise the federal rates up to 70% and all the sudden you are taxing people at 99%. I don't know of anybody who is willing to stand for that.

which proves that the wealthy can buy political clout. It proves nothing about the efficacity of the tax.

From actual experience in Europe, it wasn't that the wealthy were buying their way out of it,  the tax just didn't work as they planned.

From  If a Wealth Tax is Such a Good Idea, Why Did Europe Kill Theirs? : Planet Money : NPR

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by  the OECD  and  others , there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

As I said before, most rich do not have millions in cash lying around. The assets are in property, stock, etc.  To raise money to pay a wealth tax would require that assets be sold. You have to find buyers for such. There's no easy way to do that with the value you are talking here. And once the physical asset is sold and the tax paid, what is to stop the person from taking the reminder of the money and putting it offshore and out of reach of the tax man?  As France found out, when faced with taxes like that most wealthy will leave the country and move to other countries that are more friendly to the rich. So the original country loses out both with a loss of the citizen and the loss of what that money can do.

A wealth tax sounds nice for some on the progressive side as it seems like a simple way to reduce the wealth inequality but from history it doesn't really work out that well. Coupled with the very possible SCOTUS ruling as unconstitutional, I don't really see a wealth tax taking shape here in the US.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.32  Bob Nelson  replied to    2 weeks ago
Where do you fall in the brackets it would some clarity to your opinion. 

No, it wouldn't. My opinions are based on what's good for society, not on what's good for me.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.33  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.27    2 weeks ago
You're citing the ideals of the Green New Deal

No.

Very few of the rich have millions in cash just lying around.

Perhaps we'll finally get "trickle down".....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.31    2 weeks ago
you are taxing people at 99%

C'mon! You know how brackets work.

The loopholes are still there, and nearly as effective, reducing the theoretical rate by half.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.35  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.34    2 weeks ago

No,  a lot of the loopholes from years past are gone having been closed. There are still some but not as many and not s open.  And brackets have nothing to do with combined federal / state / local taxes when you combine them.  When you raise the federal tax rates, it doesn't cause state and local taxes to go down. So if you live in NYC and  your effective federal tax rate is 14.3%,  you combine in FICA, State, (no local tax in NYC) for a combined effective tax rate of 27.22%.  But if  you raise the federal tax rate to 70%,  then your total tax rate climbs to 82.91%.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.36  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.33    2 weeks ago
Perhaps we'll finally get "trickle down".....

I believe it's more likely we'll have more of the 1%'ers just leaving the country and taking their money with them. 

I believe a wealth tax is just a bad idea. I also don't think it will stand much of a chance of passage and if it somehow does get passed it will face years of court challenges before ending up in front of SCOTUS where I believe they will find it unconstitutional. 

This country has much more serious issues that need solutions, I would strongly suggest to Washington that they drop any pretense of push for a wealth tax and get to work on the needs of the American people. But considering how they have been conducting business for the past 40 years I don't expect them to start acting for the good of the country. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.40  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.36    2 weeks ago
... and taking their money with them. 

I assume that a wealth tax law would include dispositions to prevent that.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.41  Bob Nelson  replied to    2 weeks ago
loathing and envy are not good for society

I agree entirely! Personally, I feel neither.

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.2.42  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.40    2 weeks ago

Then we just disagree. I feel you are looking at an idealistic situation. Washington has proven over the years to be in the pocket of big money, I don't see any way that will change unless we completely change who we send to represent us. Secondly,  in a free society such that we have, once the tax has been paid for that year how can the government tell a person what he can now do with his money? If the person gives up his citizenship and moves to another country with friendly tax laws what is to stop them? What recourse does the government have at that point? About the only way I can see is for the government to enact laws that take away from the personal liberties to prevent a person from giving up his citizenship or investing his money in other countries. If the country has to enact such laws to reduce or eliminate personal freedoms to prevent such action, then isn't the country at risk of becoming that very dictatorship the left has warned the country about for the past four years?

I'm not a lawyer but the wealthy have been stashing wealth overseas for years. All these years of government and they couldn't prevent people and businesses from doing that. 

For what it's worth I can agree with you. In an idealistic world we would be mostly equal, have equal access for our wants and needs and people would help to take care of people. But that's not reality. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.43  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.42    2 weeks ago
If the person gives up his citizenship and moves to another country with friendly tax laws what is to stop them?

Citizenship is of no importance. Residency may or may not be.

As someone here pointed out, even the richest don't have a swimming pool filled with gold coins - Scrooge McDuck is fiction. Great wealth is in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, ... Not very liquid. If an ultra-rich leaves the country, just put a lien on their property. They'll come back.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.44  dennis smith  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.2.32    2 weeks ago

Everyone has opinions but that does not make them right.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.2.45  Bob Nelson  replied to  dennis smith @6.2.44    2 weeks ago

Of course not. I was asked about my opinions. I answered.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.46  Tessylo  replied to    2 weeks ago

A flat tax is a stupid idea.  The wealthy still wouldn't be paying their fair share..

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.48  Texan1211  replied to    2 weeks ago

A flat tax would be better to me, with absolutely no deductions for anything.

Even if it is a graduated flat tax (tax rates rise with income brackets), some will claim it unfair because they seem to think that some fine folks are owed something from successful folks.

I wonder who benefits most from government--people who earn a lot and pay income taxes now or someone who gets lots of benefits and pays little or no income tax?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.50  Texan1211  replied to    2 weeks ago

Nothing would be more fair, which is why I think some very fine folks oppose it so vehemently.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

The standard of living for everyone is much higher than it was 50 years ago.....

Wrong. 50 years ago a married couple with only one spouse working could afford a car payment, house payment and put 4 kids through college without being, "wealthy" and STILL have money to put into savings.. That shit simply doesn't exist anymore. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  MrFrost @6.3    2 weeks ago

Excellent post!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6.3    2 weeks ago

And 70 years ago, people didn't have $1000-$1500 cell phones, cell phone plans costing $100+ per month, laptop or desktop computers, credit card debt, lavish vacations on credit, homes which cost $100k-250k, health insurance costing several hundred a month,

meals out 3-4 times  a week, cars costing anywhere from $15k to 75k, $1000 sound systems in the car, $1500 wheels on the car, $1.50-$4.50 for gas, $150 cable/internet bills, streaming services in varying prices, etc. etc.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8  igknorantzrulz    3 weeks ago

USELESS idiots, better suits those who defend outrageous profiteering via the United States, carefully set up, totally slanted, straight up JOKE of a LOOPHOLE designed taxation, for those, in who's powder rooms is found, Menstruation Crustacean Stations, asz they're so bloody rich, and ain't life just a BITCH, when you can afford to have scratched, ANY a frckn itch ? A lobster doling out women's feminine products, who'd of thought, cause i'd guess, what else would you buy when the limit is the sky, and a school teacher pays 10 times that of the alleged Billionaire head Donald Ducking his taxes and shorting his vendors Trump. It just amazes me that righties wearing obviously far too tiighty whiteys , have no problem getting squeezed just so as to appease persons screwing over a Country that helped enable their massive wealth abundance, as they fund the lobbyists who help push the laws oh so complex, so as not too many can follow and comprehend , the laws written to bend just for them. As they hire only those that aspire to great heights, to help shelter fortunes, that their lobbyist investments do create, and it's not out of sheer envy or hate, but WTF is even a small percentage fair, cause it is not, and it is ridiculous, how bottom feeders defend these fckers as they screw over all of US, as their money decides so much as to what our pols pursue and due, and change is way OVER !  We need to reform our lobbyist bought and paid pol bribery schemes that pay and pave the way for individuals to outweigh the masses of true constituents concerns, against the ones that by who the pols do from, greatly profit and earn that which never should have been that much of a return, to sender our country further in debt, to be paid for by our childrens children, as no sweat off the backs of those who decide where it does, the monies flow, as rapid pay day loans borrow almost all from those stuck with a jones, and they defend and moan, as their fine with the company and money they're keeping, cause a loan isn't of interest to them, unless someones gonna bleed and be in need of a Menstruation Crustacean Station, that is bleeding our country to Death, do US A part !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8    2 weeks ago

BTW, that Menstruation Crustacean Station, is an actual thing. What the hell will they think of next///...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
9  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.

Damn, this big fucking surprise! You mean to tell me that when you enact policies that funnel more and more of a nation's wealth into the hands of the already wealthy they DON'T turn right around and have that wealth flow back out into broader society? What the fuck, history has shown us repeatedly that THAT is exactly what happens! I mean, it is not like there are any of examples of rich people just getting richer while giving little to nothing back to the community as a whole (or at least nothing even remotely in proportion to their wealth). 

I donate to charities sure, but it sure as hell is not any significant percentage of my family's overall wealth and I don't plan on doing that either. If the government lowers my taxes, that is going straight into either one of the kid's trust funds, or one of our investment accounts. I want to make sure my kids and future grandkids will have everything they need and set them up as well as I can financially. Now if the government were to raise my taxes, so be it. But that really is the only way you are going to get anything meaningful out of me to put towards other uses. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Greg Jones
Bob Nelson
MonsterMash
Tacos!
Drakkonis


32 visitors