Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama, Dems should introduce "1000 FAMILIES" TOP TAX TIER in negotiations about fiscal cliff (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 72% rate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, DamselleFly, bosdcla14

    would not make it out of the gate. I don't think you could get 10% of America to agree with you on this. I understand there's plenty of historical precedent, but most people aren't well enough aware of and/or comfortable with that history to agree with it.

    My guess is that the top rate would need to top out somewhere between 49 and 55%, and even then the 1% would absolutely go ballistic.

    Not sure what you mean about 100 families (3.5-35M) and 1000 families (35M+). Are you referring to how many families fit in the range? Are the family #'s reversed here? Aren't there more in the 3.5-35 than at 35+?

    As for upping the $250K to $350K, I'm guessing you are losing A LOT of revenue there.

    On capital gains, I would think the rate should increase well below $800K, perhaps $100K, and revert to normal income tax rates around $500K.

    The most important thing I see MISSING from all of these discussion is AMT's. Tax rates for long-form filers are very squishy unless there are AMT's. I had suggested something like 24% at $250K plus 1% per $4M thereafter.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries.

    by Words In Action on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:53:39 PM PST

    •  Took me awhile to figure out the "families" tiers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DamselleFly, Words In Action, rmx2630

      Finally got the general sense of it:

      These tiers are based around the minimum that a lower middle class family of four can survive on:  about $35,000.
      If you multiply that amount by 100 (i.e. 100 families worth of annual income) you get diarists first tier at $3.5 million; mutliply by 1000 and you get #35M

      "...you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem." Mitt Romney

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:04:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's amazing is that Ike had a 91% tax bracket (0+ / 0-)

      And it was 72% under Nixon.

      But I agree with you---no one would go for that today.

      •  bosdcia - apples and oranges (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Utahrd, bosdcla14

        The Tax Reform Act of 1986 so fundamentally changed the US tax code for individuals that comparing rates prior to 86 and those after is misleading. Prior to TRA86 you could shelter your earned income and drop your effective rate as low as you desired. For the top 1% the effective rate was less than half the top marginal rate. Post TRA86 you can't shelter earned income so comparing the two sets of rates is comparing apples to oranges.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:53:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  1980 top rate 70%: effective rate 22.3% (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, VClib
          For the top 1% the effective rate was less than half the top marginal rate.
          Less than half, less than a third.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 07:24:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Roger - thanks for the data (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox

            I would love to read the source if it has more pre'86 effective rates.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:11:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  tax policy center 2nd table (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              not exactly effective top rate, but top 1% earners effective rate.

              http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

              Actually I had a brain cramp, its 23% in 1980.

              Yeah in 86 the top 1% paid an effective rate of 18.6%

              In 87 they paid 21.7%.

              Look for Clinton's effective rates under the statutory 39.6%, 23-24%, pretty good, but with historically much fewer deductions and exemptions.

              We know we can incentivize capital flow to or away from sectors thru tax policy.

              SO yeah I think 70% has to be brought back, but I dont really want to raise taxes on the uber rich and corporations, if they do good for the community.

              Leveling the playing field is so much BS, removing loopholes makes for a less stable economy.

              Have you ever seen this data?

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              A Recession every 4.3 yrs, 28 of 31 lasting 1 to 5 years, Job shedding of 15% to 30%, peak to trough of 20-33%.

              Thats what I think of when I think; unstable economy.

              I have a pdf of a book of economic figures 1790 to 1945, published in 1945 IIRC. Industrial production, how many cars were registered in each year, Maritime tons shipped,  all kinds of crazy stuff.

              I got turned on to the pdf after emailing the Bureau of Economic Analysis, asking for GDP data prior to 1930. They dont have any past 1929, but they sent me in the right direction.

              Prior to 1933, those were different times, infrastructure was by mostly private money. One reason I'm not enthralled by infrastructure banks, they would control the creation of 14 to 18 million jobs, if they spend the 5% of GDP that should be spent.

              FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 08:36:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •   I think DK and the nation needs to talk about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, UntimelyRippd

      these higher rates.

      I'm really tired of the conversational limitation caused by talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

      39.6% is not going to address increasing income and wealth disparity, there is simply no room to do whats needed without going higher than 55-60%.

      Tax breaks and shelters pre 86TRA were not all bad.

      I dont want more revenue from a change in tax policy, I want a stable economic system, I want the working and middle classes to be able to keep what they earn.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:39:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site