Official House Democrats thread (Pelosi #undefeated)

[ChrisL68]

Yeah, the argument “You shouldn’t raise rates on the highest earners because they used to hide money and now they don’t” is a weird hill to stake your flag on

First of all people weren't hiding money these were perfectly legal shelters that were in the tax code. Secondly the argument he is making is that these high marginal tax rates didn't have an impact on GDP and the fact that he is ignoring the impact of the shelters and deductions and what they had on the true taxes that high income earners were actually paying is very relevant to that. A Nobel Laureate Economist who focuses on tax policy should understand that

 

[PhDeac]

What’s the tax rate that will get rich people to say “Sure, I don’t mind paying taxes.”

 

[Strickland33]

First of all people weren't hiding money these were perfectly legal shelters that were in the tax code. Secondly the argument he is making is that these high marginal tax rates didn't have an impact on GDP and the fact that he is ignoring the impact of the shelters and deductions and what they had on the true taxes that high income earners were actually paying is very relevant to that. A Nobel Laureate Economist who focuses on tax policy should understand that

LOL

 

[ChrisL68]

LOL

I know. I used too many big words

 

[MHBDemon]

Somebody has to stan for the rich folk around here.

 

[ChrisL68]

What’s the tax rate that will get rich people to say “Sure, I don’t mind paying taxes.”

Nobody pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay. The absence of legal shelters and deductions would mean that an increase of marginal rates to those levels would have a significant impact on effective rates and make any comparison to the 40s and 50s invalid.

 

[CHDeac]

Nobody pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay. The absence of legal shelters and deductions would mean that an increase of marginal rates to those levels would have a significant impact on effective rates and make any comparison to the 40s and 50s invalid.

Damn you with sound reasoning!

 

[PhDeac]

Nobody pays more taxes than they are legally required to pay. The absence of legal shelters and deductions would mean that an increase of marginal rates to those levels would have a significant impact on effective rates and make any comparison to the 40s and 50s invalid.

We are discussing how much they should be legally required to pay. I’m still not sure of your point. Are you saying that our civilization is screwed if the wealthiest Americans pay a higher effective rate now than the 40s and 50s despite the fact they control a far higher percentage of the wealth?

 

[CHDeac]

Somebody has to stan for the rich folk around here.

This or you know the board's resident tax expert just explaining how tax policy works. Not sure which one to be honest.

 

[06deacon]

We are discussing how much they should be legally required to pay. I’m still not sure of your point. Are you saying that our civilization is screwed if the wealthiest Americans pay a higher effective rate now than the 40s and 50s despite the fact they control a far higher percentage of the wealth?

Jesus, no he’s not saying that at all and you know that. Why do folks always jump all over Chris when he posts tax stuff?

 

[PhDeac]

Jesus, no he’s not saying that at all and you know that. Why do folks always jump all over Chris when he posts tax stuff?

Then what is his point? Nothing that he’s posted makes a case that raising the tax rates at the highest incomes is a bad or good thing.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

Grover sucks so very much.

 

[ChrisL68]

I really don't know how I could have made my point more clearly.

 

[PhDeac]

The best trick Republicans have pulled is getting people to believe that people get taxed, not money.

 

[PhDeac]

Pelosi vs. ???? (Official House Democrats thread)

I really don't know how I could have made my point more clearly.

Is a 70% tax rate at several million dollars good or bad? Why?

You gave a history lesson not an answer.

 

[ChrisL68]

I pointed out that Krugman's logic was specious. That was my point. Personally, I think a 70% federal tax rate on wealthy people with our current tax structure is a terrible idea that would be a huge gift to Republicans when it is quickly repealed after a couple of years by the new Republican congress.

 

[PhDeac]

Pelosi vs. ???? (Official House Democrats thread)

I pointed out that Krugman's logic was specious. That was my point. Personally, I think a 70% federal tax rate on wealthy people with our current tax structure is a terrible idea that would be a huge gift to Republicans when it is quickly repealed after a couple of years by the new Republican congress.

Yeah. It was clear you thought his logic was flawed but it wasn’t clear that you thought it doomed the whole idea and why. Even though you disagree with Krugman’s analysis, your issue the idea is with the politics, not the math.

Junebug, I asked him to clarify his point and he did. That’s how constructive discussions work. Chris knows what he’s talking about but it wasn’t clear what his endgame was.

 

[tiltdeac]

Then what is his point? Nothing that he’s posted makes a case that raising the tax rates at the highest incomes is a bad or good thing.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that the argument of "of course we can raise marginal rates that high, they were that high before and things were fine!" is a little misleading. The charts make it look like the rich paid way more in taxes back then, but the average effective tax rate of the top 1% in the 1950s was 42%. I don't have data for 2018, but as of a couple years ago, top 1% was playing an average of 36%. Still less than they used to obviously, but not by as much as the marginal rate differences makes it seems.

I see two different arguments. One is that based on historical data, we can very likely raise effective rates on the rich some without meaningful affecting GDP. But to go as high as AOC is suggesting is not an apples to apples comparison with the high marginal rates of the past for a number of reasons. I think that's all Chris was saying.

A second argument is whether we *should* go even higher (than historical precedent) with our effective rates. I think you can make a compelling argument the answer is yes, acknowledging that there would be more uncertainty and at some level we will be negatively impacting the economy (and even that may be okay, if the payoff is worth it in other areas). But that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[HoosierDeac]

If the marginal utility of a dollar is far higher for someone making $30,000 vs. someone making $10MM, doesn't it make sense to tax the uber-income people more in order to benefit a broader group of people, increase the velocity of that dollar etc etc?

 

[ChrisL68]

If the marginal utility of a dollar is far higher for someone making $30,000 vs. someone making $10MM, doesn't it make sense to tax the uber-income people more in order to benefit a broader group of people, increase the velocity of that dollar etc etc?

We have progressive taxation right now. The question is the degrees.