[TheBreeze]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

Do you have any cites to back these assertions up or did you just pull them out your ass?

[TheBreeze]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

Do you have any cites to back these assertions up or did you just pull them out your ass?

[TheBreeze]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

Do you have any cites to back these assertions up or did you just pull them out your ass?

[TheBreeze]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

Do you have any cites to back these assertions up or did you just pull them out your ass?

[TheBreeze]

I’m seeing a lot of familiar arguments hurdled back and forth in the above posts about the “fairness” of our progressive income tax system, our distribution of income in America, and income mobility over time. We are getting bogged down in anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks. Here are a few empirically verifiable observations that should contribute to our understanding:
1. There is a huge, largely unpublicized, correlation between family income and hours worked annually.
Sounds simple, and it is. The poor simply work less, for a variety of reasons.
2. The income tax rate structure is already extremely “progressive” if measured by the % paid by each quintile. The lowest two quintiles pay less than 5% of the revenues, the top quintile pays over half.
3. Historically, increases in marginal tax rates NEVER bring in the predicted tax revenues. People can simply work less or arrange their affairs to legally (or illegally) pay less. Indeed, regarding the capital gains tax rate, there is a perfect record going back decades of lower rates bringing in more tax revenue, and higher rates less revenue.

Do you have any cites to back these assertions up or did you just pull them out your ass?

[TheBreeze]

Excellent posts, SDEngineer. Very eloquently said.

AsiaNautica, you seem to have no clue how the current tax system works. Go here and take a look at the current tax brackets and educate yourself:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

As you can see, the current tax rate for someone in the $164,555-$357,700 bracket is 33%. Under Obama, this rate might go to 38% or so. That’s only an extra 5% increase. It’s not an increase from 0 to 38% like you seem to be implying in this thread.

What that means is that someone in this bracket who makes $250,000 will pay approximately an extra $2,500 in taxes on their last $50,000 in income (0.05 x $50,000 = $2,500) versus what they would have paid under Bush. BFD. So your precious cousin will owe an extra $2,500 on that last $50K in income. I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for him.

You seem to consider an extra 5% in taxes to be one of the biggest injustices in the world. You are obviously clueless and from all appearances border-line retarded. I assure you there are much bigger injustices in this world than your cousin having to pay an extra $2,500 in taxes on his last $50K in income.

[TheBreeze]

Excellent posts, SDEngineer. Very eloquently said.

AsiaNautica, you seem to have no clue how the current tax system works. Go here and take a look at the current tax brackets and educate yourself:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

As you can see, the current tax rate for someone in the $164,555-$357,700 bracket is 33%. Under Obama, this rate might go to 38% or so. That’s only an extra 5% increase. It’s not an increase from 0 to 38% like you seem to be implying in this thread.

What that means is that someone in this bracket who makes $250,000 will pay approximately an extra $2,500 in taxes on their last $50,000 in income (0.05 x $50,000 = $2,500) versus what they would have paid under Bush. BFD. So your precious cousin will owe an extra $2,500 on that last $50K in income. I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for him.

You seem to consider an extra 5% in taxes to be one of the biggest injustices in the world. You are obviously clueless and from all appearances border-line retarded. I assure you there are much bigger injustices in this world than your cousin having to pay an extra $2,500 in taxes on his last $50K in income.

[TheBreeze]

Excellent posts, SDEngineer. Very eloquently said.

AsiaNautica, you seem to have no clue how the current tax system works. Go here and take a look at the current tax brackets and educate yourself:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

As you can see, the current tax rate for someone in the $164,555-$357,700 bracket is 33%. Under Obama, this rate might go to 38% or so. That’s only an extra 5% increase. It’s not an increase from 0 to 38% like you seem to be implying in this thread.

What that means is that someone in this bracket who makes $250,000 will pay approximately an extra $2,500 in taxes on their last $50,000 in income (0.05 x $50,000 = $2,500) versus what they would have paid under Bush. BFD. So your precious cousin will owe an extra $2,500 on that last $50K in income. I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for him.

You seem to consider an extra 5% in taxes to be one of the biggest injustices in the world. You are obviously clueless and from all appearances border-line retarded. I assure you there are much bigger injustices in this world than your cousin having to pay an extra $2,500 in taxes on his last $50K in income.

[TheBreeze]

Excellent posts, SDEngineer. Very eloquently said.

AsiaNautica, you seem to have no clue how the current tax system works. Go here and take a look at the current tax brackets and educate yourself:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

As you can see, the current tax rate for someone in the $164,555-$357,700 bracket is 33%. Under Obama, this rate might go to 38% or so. That’s only an extra 5% increase. It’s not an increase from 0 to 38% like you seem to be implying in this thread.

What that means is that someone in this bracket who makes $250,000 will pay approximately an extra $2,500 in taxes on their last $50,000 in income (0.05 x $50,000 = $2,500) versus what they would have paid under Bush. BFD. So your precious cousin will owe an extra $2,500 on that last $50K in income. I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for him.

You seem to consider an extra 5% in taxes to be one of the biggest injustices in the world. You are obviously clueless and from all appearances border-line retarded. I assure you there are much bigger injustices in this world than your cousin having to pay an extra $2,500 in taxes on his last $50K in income.

[TheBreeze]

Excellent posts, SDEngineer. Very eloquently said.

AsiaNautica, you seem to have no clue how the current tax system works. Go here and take a look at the current tax brackets and educate yourself:

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

As you can see, the current tax rate for someone in the $164,555-$357,700 bracket is 33%. Under Obama, this rate might go to 38% or so. That’s only an extra 5% increase. It’s not an increase from 0 to 38% like you seem to be implying in this thread.

What that means is that someone in this bracket who makes $250,000 will pay approximately an extra $2,500 in taxes on their last $50,000 in income (0.05 x $50,000 = $2,500) versus what they would have paid under Bush. BFD. So your precious cousin will owe an extra $2,500 on that last $50K in income. I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t shed a tear for him.

You seem to consider an extra 5% in taxes to be one of the biggest injustices in the world. You are obviously clueless and from all appearances border-line retarded. I assure you there are much bigger injustices in this world than your cousin having to pay an extra $2,500 in taxes on his last $50K in income.

[TheBreeze]

If you have a married couple and both work that hard can easily rake in 260-300k. Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?

You are one crazy Asian. Are you seriously saying that a couple who might have to pay a higher marginal rate on $10K to $50K of income are not being rewarded for working harder? This is really ridiculous. Add in 401(k) deductions for both spouses and you have at most $19K of income on which your theoretical couple might have to pay higher taxes.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

In any event, what you are really saying is that you want the government to spend like drunken sailors (The Bush administration has grown government at the highest rate in 30 years) while not paying for it. What you really want is for future generations to pay for all the Republicans current reckless spending. It’s sad that people like you don’t take responsibility for your actions and instead try to push off your responsibilities to future generations.

[TheBreeze]

If you have a married couple and both work that hard can easily rake in 260-300k. Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?

You are one crazy Asian. Are you seriously saying that a couple who might have to pay a higher marginal rate on $10K to $50K of income are not being rewarded for working harder? This is really ridiculous. Add in 401(k) deductions for both spouses and you have at most $19K of income on which your theoretical couple might have to pay higher taxes.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

In any event, what you are really saying is that you want the government to spend like drunken sailors (The Bush administration has grown government at the highest rate in 30 years) while not paying for it. What you really want is for future generations to pay for all the Republicans current reckless spending. It’s sad that people like you don’t take responsibility for your actions and instead try to push off your responsibilities to future generations.

[TheBreeze]

If you have a married couple and both work that hard can easily rake in 260-300k. Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?

You are one crazy Asian. Are you seriously saying that a couple who might have to pay a higher marginal rate on $10K to $50K of income are not being rewarded for working harder? This is really ridiculous. Add in 401(k) deductions for both spouses and you have at most $19K of income on which your theoretical couple might have to pay higher taxes.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

In any event, what you are really saying is that you want the government to spend like drunken sailors (The Bush administration has grown government at the highest rate in 30 years) while not paying for it. What you really want is for future generations to pay for all the Republicans current reckless spending. It’s sad that people like you don’t take responsibility for your actions and instead try to push off your responsibilities to future generations.

[TheBreeze]

If you have a married couple and both work that hard can easily rake in 260-300k. Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?

You are one crazy Asian. Are you seriously saying that a couple who might have to pay a higher marginal rate on $10K to $50K of income are not being rewarded for working harder? This is really ridiculous. Add in 401(k) deductions for both spouses and you have at most $19K of income on which your theoretical couple might have to pay higher taxes.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

In any event, what you are really saying is that you want the government to spend like drunken sailors (The Bush administration has grown government at the highest rate in 30 years) while not paying for it. What you really want is for future generations to pay for all the Republicans current reckless spending. It’s sad that people like you don’t take responsibility for your actions and instead try to push off your responsibilities to future generations.

[TheBreeze]

If you have a married couple and both work that hard can easily rake in 260-300k. Aren’t they supposed to get rewarded for working 2x has hard as most people?

You are one crazy Asian. Are you seriously saying that a couple who might have to pay a higher marginal rate on $10K to $50K of income are not being rewarded for working harder? This is really ridiculous. Add in 401(k) deductions for both spouses and you have at most $19K of income on which your theoretical couple might have to pay higher taxes.

Your arguments are ridiculous.

In any event, what you are really saying is that you want the government to spend like drunken sailors (The Bush administration has grown government at the highest rate in 30 years) while not paying for it. What you really want is for future generations to pay for all the Republicans current reckless spending. It’s sad that people like you don’t take responsibility for your actions and instead try to push off your responsibilities to future generations.

[Author]

Posts