The political knifes are drawn

[Undertoad]

From 1951 until 1963, income over $400k was taxed at 91% or 92%.

Those numbers are simply not interesting in isolation.

* No adjustment for inflation. $400k in 1951 would be $3,267,908 today.
* No adjustment for what is considered income. The definition has changed.
* No consideration of taxing capital gains which happened at vastly different rates and different rules over time.
* Different world conditions, changing whether rich people were immigrating or emigrating and much more.

[HungLikeJesus]

While looking for information on Sweden's 101-percent tax, I found this interesting discussion on tax rates and the effect on employment:

Required reading: Robert Reich in today's NYT on ending the Great Recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09... For those in a hurry, Reich's main points:
--Since 1970 real wages of American workers have declined. To compensate working families adopted three stratagems: a second member of the household went to work, typically the wife/mother; work more hours per year; go into debt, esp. home equity loans.
--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.
--Increased production from abroad (China) put further downward pressure on real American wages.
(These are Facts, or what American Teahadists refer to as a "pack of lies." http://coloradopols.com/showCo... )

The rest is here.

P.S. I noticed that the site's tag line is from the Alferd Packer trial:

"Stand up, Alferd Packer, you voracious, man-eating, son-of-a-bitch. There were seven Democrats in Hinsdale County, and you ate five of them."

[TheMercenary]

[quote=HungLikeJesus;699856]

--Since 1970 the share of national income flowing to the top one per cent rose from 9% to 23.5%. In effect this siphoned off demand for goods and services produced by the larger work force that was working more hours.

I wonder if they looked at the time of the Vanderbuilts and others in that period and could make the same statistical assessment. I believe that statistic is suspect, not to mention the author is well known in his bias of the current economic situation and how he thinks we should deal with it. Just an observation.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

UG reports that global warming is cooling down because there are fewer jobs generating all that human activity.

Ah, what the hell -- I'll too!

[HungLikeJesus]

No, no. Capital.

[Happy Monkey]

D'oh!

[Shawnee123]

Yes, and China is merc's BFF!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And he did a lot of great stuff for the poor and he paid for it himself. He did not give it to the government and expect them to do it, he did it.

So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So let's say... tax rates for every dollar over $250,000 per year went way up, but there was an option for charitable tax credits, rather than just deductions. So you would be handing over the same amount of money either way, but you would have the option to give all of it to the charity of your choice instead of the government (with, perhaps, a few restrictions on not being allowed to fund a charity that you yourself have any personal employment or association with.) That would be a-okay with you?

Only if I get to choose the charity. And it depends on the amount of the tax. And not to a general fund controlled by the government or some groups that I do not agree with. The military has had such a system for years, pretax dollars sent to a charity of your choice, it is called CFC. What many people did not understand about it was that there were over 300 groups signed up to receive funds from it, but they never knew they could direct the funds to specific organizations. For a while there was a lot of pressure to contribute. That went away over time. But it did not replace, as in your example, the tax you actually paid. I can't think of anyone on AD who who made over 250k, so not that it matters.

[Spexxvet]

Another benefit for the wealthy: they only pay fica on the first $106,800 of their salary.

[TheMercenary]

China and India are doing fairly well... but let's look at the details. Danger, biased source.

Hillary Clinton raised more than a few eyebrows last week, when she aired her own views (and not necessarily those of the Obama administration, she said) on federal tax policy, saying she feels the rich “are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [like the U.S.] – whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are.” CNN reports Secretary Clinton pointed to Brazil, long known for its high taxes, as a model of successful economic policy. “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate [35.3 percent] in the Western Hemisphere and guess what – they’re growing like crazy,” Clinton said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”

Clinton implies redistribution is necessary, or at least very useful, to poverty reduction. She is right that Brazil has substantially reduced poverty in the past decades: a study by Martin Ravallion of the World Bank’s Development Research Group notes a decline of the proportion of Brazilians living in extreme poverty – less than US $1.25 a day – from 17 percent to 8 percent during the period 1981-2005. But redistribution is not the only or best way of reducing poverty. China and India substantially reduced extreme poverty over the same period: China from 84 to 16 percent, and India from 60 to 42. Their tax-to-GDP ratios are only 18.3 and 18.8. China and India managed to reduce poverty while generating much greater economic growth than Brazil. Whereas Brazil’s GDP per capita increased an average of 0.8 percent a year from 1981 to 2005, China’s increased an average of 8.8 percent, and India’s an average of 3.9 percent over the same period.

Ravallion's World Bank study found that Brazil could have completely eliminated poverty in 2005 by taxing 0.7 percent of individual income in excess of the poverty line. In other words, if the Brazilian government had taxed each citizen’s income minus $1.25 per day at a rate of 0.7 percent, it should have had enough to guarantee every citizen a daily income of $1.25. Brazilians were and are taxed far in excess of this rate, yet extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor.

Clinton may be right that redistribution is in some cases an effective means of lifting people out of poverty, but the Brazilian example in and of itself is not compelling.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...erty-and-taxes

[SamIam]

This is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.

According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.

Just two examples:

1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.

2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.

Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

This is the trouble with getting information from blogs - it is usually biased and often incomplete. Brazil does NOT use the redistribution of wealth in any real way to combat poverty.

According to the Brown Journal of World Affairs, Brazilian social spending is characterized by disparate targeting performances with few programs succeeding in reaching the poor, while substantial expenditures in all “social” areas disproportionately benefit the middle class and the rich.

Just two examples:

1) The zero percent enrollment of the bottom 40% in income at Brazil's universities is scandalous. Any pretense of equal, or even mildly unequal, access to university in Brazil is a sorry fiction.

2) Over 50 percent of Brazil's unemployment insurance expenditures go to the top 40 percent in income, while the poorest Brazilians, those in indigence, receive a paltry 3 percent of the program’s
resources.

Brazil is an example of the "good old boy system" where those who have the wealth ensure they keep all of it for themselves - not of the benefits of cash transfers to the poor.

So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system? IS that why all the unions are getting such great breaks by the Obama Administration?

And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source? Sort of like when people jump on Fox News for what is otherwise factual information, but because you want to demonize the source it suddenly becomes false?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So is that how you see our system, nothing more than a "good Ole Boy" system?

Actually, yes. I don't think people like you and me, regardless of our political persuations, have much say at all in how the country is being governed. Unions, international mega-conglomerates and Bill Gates all have more power over Congress than we do. The US situation is not as bad as that of Brazil, but give it time.

And please tell me which parts of the "Blog" are not factual? or is it you just don't like the source?

The part where it says "extreme poverty persists despite the effects of cash transfers to the poor." As I stated, "cash transfers" to the poor in Brazil are largely a polite fiction told by the Brazilian government. If you're really that interested, I'll pm you with the economic studies.

I never have much faith in sources that derive from someone's opinion - this includes blogs. Think tanks and foundations funded by true believers of any persuation are also suspect.

[skysidhe]

What are your sources for these economic studies? Why not post them here, since you are on the subject.

Does this interview with Maria Lopez include some of the polite lies from the government? I am curious. If the government is lying and foundations are biased, how is it that you can find the truth? What economic studies?

http://www.mediaglobal.org/article/2...ld_be_minister


Here is the same interview from the UNEP.
http://www.unep.org/south-south-coop...6/Default.aspx

MG: While your “Bolsa Famila” initiative, the largest income transfer program in the world, has helped reduce poverty, 45 million people in Brazil live in extreme poverty. Could you on comment on that? In addition, why do you think that despite international praise for the policy, it is actually really contentious and lacking in support within Brazil?
MML: This has changed. Up to 2006 we actually had a very strong opposition to Bolsa Familia, particularly in public opinion and the media. The situation is that we have social sectors in Brazil that believe we should have continued on with social policies where each person would just pursue their own path to improve their life. But these were very often paths of social exclusion, poverty, suffering, hunger, and death. Unfortunately, a lot of people felt these problems could be fixed on the basis of charity, aid, and volunteer work. There was also resistance in that President Lula and Bolsa Familia challenged the status quo. We have a problem with conservatives, but President Lula didn’t back down. He spoke of zero hunger, and he traveled throughout Brazil and saw what was happening in our country where so many; indigenous people, people in rural and inner city areas, were often dealing with hunger. Brazil could never have a level of balance, economic growth, and development without wealth redistribution.