OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000) got
taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary. But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:49:49 -0400, D. LaCourse wrote:

On 2010-09-30 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton said:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000)
got taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom

Tom, raising *anyone's* taxes during a recession is a very foolish
thing to do. It won't bring in that much revenue, probably make fed
revenue income go down. Tax cuts for *everyone* is necessary.

Um, well, no, it is not "necessary" - first, many do not, and will not, pay any
taxes (and some will still get "credit(s)" on top of that, IIRC), so one cannot
"cut" taxes that aren't paid. Second, at some level, folks could pay the extra
5% and really not notice it, insofar as "lifestyle" is concerned. To use the
extreme example, Gates and Buffett - if they were suddenly taxed 5% _of their
net worth_, rather than "taxable income," they'd still see no change in their
lifestyle (hell, they both see such swings in their net worth regularly).

But
your Muslim Hero doesn't want that; he wants to tax the "rich". He has
continueously talked about redistributing the wealth. Tax increases is
not the way to do it, nor can we spend our way into prosperity. Two
hundred fifty thousand/year is not rich is many areas of this country.

250K a year is not "rich" anywhere on the planet, but that's not, pardon the
pun, material. OTOH, it is pretty darned comfortable just about anywhere, and
in many areas, when compared to the lowest earners, it is income beyond
comprehension. But so what? Taxation should be fair to all, and _no one_
should be able to avoid _income_ tax (by necessity, one must have income to be
taxed on it, so those that honestly cannot work would owe no tax).

HTH,
R

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

well, I've waded through all this, and coincidentally read a very
interesting take on matters today. It discussed the 'golden era' that
many of the Tea Party types seem to look back upon, the 1950's. You
know, capitalism worked well, jobs were created, folks were moving
forward reasonably. You know how the tax code worked, back then?
Anything in income over $500,000(in today's money, about $4,000,000) got
taxed at the top federal rate. That rate? 91%. That's right, 91%.
If we had something along those lines in effect right now, taxing all
income over $4,000,000 at 91%, roughly $400 billion annually would go
into the budget. And the number affected? Roughly 0.04% of the entire
population. It wouldn't impact small businesses, it wouldn't cause the
government to have to gauge middle class earners with an AMT, none of
that. I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom


While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

And you might wish to consider what folks like Carnegie did with their money -
while they certainly gave a lot away, they sure didn't leave the kids,
grandkids, etc. eating out of dumpsters - do some quick research into Bessemer
Trust (the Phipps family), the various Rockefeller trusts, the Kennedy stuff,
etc.

Simply put, I'll happily pay 99.9% income (or whatever) tax...if you let me
write the tax code...

TC,
R

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:59:40 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

I have to admit that I've always been intrigued by Andrew
Carnegie's idea of a 90% inheritance tax, but the 1950's tax code works
just fine the way I see it, as well.
Tom


And you might wish to consider what folks like Carnegie did with their money -
while they certainly gave a lot away, they sure didn't leave the kids,
grandkids, etc. eating out of dumpsters - do some quick research into Bessemer
Trust (the Phipps family), the various Rockefeller trusts, the Kennedy stuff,
etc.

NB - the reason I suggested others was that Carnegie only had one child, a
daughter, who was made trustee of the primary trust he set up - even with a 90%
scheme, there would have been little "inheritance" to tax, yet his only heir
could have still lived like, well, someone who had just inherited the bulk of
Carnegie's estate.

R

On 9/30/2010 8:04 PM, wrote:

While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

also, the 91% was only over the threshold, and as you point out there
were loopholes(not that there aren't now). Still, look at it this way:
when something like that is in place, the emphasis on the quick killing
(a la hedge fund and other money 'managers') for the massive annual
income is lessened. Loopholes or not, if you report an income of, say,
800 million, I'll bet a few hundred don't get loopholed out of the
amount in the 91% bracket. Suddenly, long-term capital gains look like
wise things to aim for, and folks start planning long term strategies,
which benefit the nation. That is precisely the economic model that was
in effect in the 50's and 60's. Then the 'business management' types
took over, looked for easy, fast profits, and we all suffer, to some extent.
On the other hand, your example of France taxing everyone is only
pertinent insofar as France provides social benefits to all that are
unheard of in this nation. Whether that model is sustainable can be
debated, but despite some Eurozone issues, the Scandanavian societies
seem to pull it off without too much effort.

Tom

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:16:14 -0400, Tom Littleton wrote:

On 9/30/2010 8:04 PM, wrote:

While it is true that the "technical" top tax bracket was 91% (on "net taxable
income"), the loopholes were, well, more the rule than the exception, so very
few actually paid 91%.

also, the 91% was only over the threshold, and as you point out there
were loopholes(not that there aren't now). Still, look at it this way:
when something like that is in place, the emphasis on the quick killing
(a la hedge fund and other money 'managers') for the massive annual
income is lessened. Loopholes or not, if you report an income of, say,
800 million, I'll bet a few hundred don't get loopholed out of the
amount in the 91% bracket.

Anyone who has the slightest interest in "earning" 800 million as individual
income in a year, be it today, yesterday, or in the 50s likely isn't going to
care about tax brackets. And AFAIK, there aren't a whole lot of folks in that
category, anyway. IAC, you couldn't run fast enough to give me 800 million a
year - I don't need it and don't want the headaches (and probable heartaches) it
would bring. That's one of things I don't understand about Buffett - people go
on and on about what a great guy he is because he's giving away billions. Um,
well, yeah, but he's keeping a few, too. What "normal" person would even want
(and by that, I mean have the desire to personally strive to acquire it) a
single billion? If one has even one billion in readily-convertible "cash," it
could be very conservatively invested and produce an annual income of 50-100 mil
a year. WTF could a sensible, rational person do with even that income? If
he's so wonderful, why didn't he take less (personal) profit all along and
"share the wealth" all along, or, give much of it to charity all along? Granted,
there are a few out there that, from a single source, wound up in a situation
where they literally can't give it away fast enough (ala many of the Walton
family and to a limited extent, Gates), but these little ****asses like
what-his-nuts from Facebook, etc., there's got to be something seriously wrong
with their makeup, at least IMO. But that said, I still don't think that they
ought to carry a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden.

Suddenly, long-term capital gains look like
wise things to aim for, and folks start planning long term strategies,
which benefit the nation. That is precisely the economic model that was
in effect in the 50's and 60's. Then the 'business management' types
took over, looked for easy, fast profits, and we all suffer, to some extent.
On the other hand, your example of France taxing everyone is only
pertinent insofar as France provides social benefits to all that are
unheard of in this nation. Whether that model is sustainable can be
debated, but despite some Eurozone issues,

the Scandanavian societies seem to pull it off without too much effort.

WHAT? First of all, you're taking about countries that wouldn't even rank in
the top five, population-wise, of US states (and I'm not sure that even Sweden
would be in the top 10 - I know Denmark and Norway wouldn't be, and depending on
your definition of "Scandinavia," Iceland has a population you could in fit into
a smallish Holiday Inn...and it managed to bankrupt itself). In fact, I don't
think the population all of "Scandinavia," even including all potential
countries that could be included, would even equal CA, TX, or NY. Not that a
smaller population is a bad thing - in fact, it can be a great thing. Plus,
those populations are about as homogeneous and "native" as they come - there
are, what, 27 "foreigners" in all of Scandinavia, whatever countries you include
out of the possibles (and yeah, I know, that's not literal, but still...).

IAC, pick your medicine - the taxes in Denmark are, IIRC, the highest in the
world - the gov takes something like 99 cents of the first dollar and then gets
out the shears to cut your share from the remaining "penny." ****, you'd have
rioting in the streets if you suddenly tried to tax those in the US ala Denmark.
Norway has more oil than 17 Arab sheiks and have the population of about N.
Dakota (again, yes, hyperbole, but still...). And yet, they have still had
their share of "entitlement"-related woes, as has Sweden. The simple fact of
the matter is that the idea of "the Scandinavian (and/or "Nordic") Model" is
largely myth, esp. outside of "Scandinavia," but it hasn't been completely shown
as such in "common knowledge" because it hasn't completely failed _yet_. If you
want to see an epic failure, try to apply it to the US. Oh, true enough, if,
say, Vermont suddenly seceded, it might work for a few years there, but in the
entirety of the US (or the Eurozone, etc.)? No way, no how. And the even
simpler fact is that some socio-capitalist "Utopia" cannot exist, long-term,
because it would be populated with people.

TC,
R

Tom