What if Republicans don't compromise? by kpo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14361383

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW Frem, how're you doing? Still having pain and all?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 31, 2011 10:00 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 2:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Thing is, Geezer's posted on other threads since then.

Been checking the filing cabinets again, Mike?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 3:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I am not talking about "fair", Geezer. I'm talking macroeconomics. As long as most money is in the hands a just a few very wealthy people, the average person will buy fewer goods and services. There will be less demand. Less demand, less production. Less production, fewer jobs. Fewer jobs... less money. It's a nasty self-propelling downward spiral once that gets going.

So? This has pretty much nothing to do with what I started discussing with you - the idiocy of trying to apply 1960 tax rates to the current situation, and tax rates in general. I suspect that you've figured out that there's no way to salvage that argument, and just want to change the subject.

If you want to go on a rant about redistribution of wealth, go ahead, but that's not the discussion I was having and I feel no responsibility to join in.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 5:56 AM

DREAMTROVE

Funny thing is, while people been weedling at Geez, the controversy being discusses has ended, as I posted in a thread "Debtor Nation" which got no responses, and then again, subtly posted by OED up above. Obama agreed to cut a trillion, but it's a congressional trillion, which means 100 billion, because they multiply all items on the budget by 10 (congress has done this for years) anyway, in exchange for the debt ceiling raise. He wants to borrow 1.7 trillion for this year, and another 1.4 trillion for next year, but that will be discussed after the meeting on what exactly to cut, which means by then the prez, congress and porkistan will have added another 500 billion.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 7:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the idiocy of trying to apply 1960 tax rates to the current situation, and tax rates in general. I suspect that you've figured out that there's no way to salvage that argument, and just want to change the subject.

No, I figured that once I pointed out that a family in 2010 earning $218,000 is the same as our 1960 family earning $30,000, the answer would become obvious. Apparently not.

On the topic of 1960 taxes.

Let's see... a couple making $30,000 in 1960 is THE SAME AS as a couple making roughly $218,000 in 2010. Applying 1960 tax rates at $30,000 to $218,000 today they would be paying ... WHAT again???

Oh, yeah, you didn't address that. You once again mixed apple and oranges

Quote:
Lets look again at our 2011 family with two kids and a $30,000 taxable income.

No, let's look at our 2010 family with a $218,000 dollar income, because that is our 1960 family in today's dollars. Since you keep screwing up the numbers, I'll do it for you: A family earning $218,000 taxed at 1960 rates of $30,0000 would pay about 40% in taxes. That's not too far off of the current rate of about 38%

Meanwhile, millionaires pay about 22% and billionaires pay about 18%

-------------
And I haven't even addressed going back to the 1960 wealth distribution, all I've done is adjust for inflation. Because if we were to go back to the 1960 GINI index, there would be many more families at this high income level than there are currently. So now that you've been thoroughly schooled in logic and taxes, please address the topic of unequal wealth distribution, and its effect on the economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 7:41 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On the topic of 1960 taxes.

Let's see... a couple making $30,000 in 1960 is THE SAME AS as a couple making roughly $218,000 in 2010. Applying 1960 tax rates to $218,000 they would be paying ... WHAT again???

Once again (for about the fourth time), I was never talking about folks making $30,000 taxable income in 1960 dollars, I was talking about folks making $30,000 in 2011 dollars. I was pointing out that under a proposal to tax folks at 1960 rates, even with the tables adjusted for inflation, folks with incomes in the lower ranges, say $30,000 to $50,000 taxable, would get hammered.

Here's the quote, with underlining for emphasis, so maybe you'll see it this time:

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Lets look again at our 2011 family with two kids and a $30,000 taxable income. With 2010 tax rates and credits, they pay no tax, and even get some credits back. Under 1960 rates, even adjusted for inflation, they fall in the lowest 1960 bracket, 20%, and still owe $6,000 income tax. Even after applying EITC and Child Tax credits, which they wouldn't have under 1960 laws, they're still owing $3,225 instead of getting $112 back.

Should your failure to correctly interpret what's plainly written above lead me to conclude, using the criteria you've applied earlier in this thread, that you're "weaseling out" on your answer by purposefully misinterpreting, or 'lying', about what I wrote?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 7:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What is the adjustment for inflation back to 1960 dollars? A family making $30,000 today is the same as a family making... What? in 1960. (I can do the math, but you have never posted that number)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 10:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I think all this snarking at Geezer is pointless and makes me cringe. I've been picked on by some for not responding quickly enough when there were numrous reasons I didn't that had nothing to do with cowardice. I don't mind that he doesn't come back to address your questions; good gawd, does Raptor EVER??? I know how it feels to have written a long post and have it vanish, which is why I do pretty much any post more than a paragraph long in Word first (as I am this one). Lastly, given anyone can post anything they want to, I think it's equally fair that nobody HAS to respond to any questions asked of them. JMHO

On the other hand, if you're going to stick to just the bit about 1960 taxes, I don't think that answers the question posed. If you don't choose to answer it, that's your right, but Sig's entire paragraph was what I believe, as well, and what I think history has shown--about wealth being in the hands of only a few and how that's never good for a society.

Quote:
One thing we need in all walks of the economy is to get rid of middlemen

Oh, man oh man is THAT right! So many layers have been added on to so many things, and each layer works hard to justify keeping it intact...if we fixed THAT, I'll bet we could eliminate the debt!

Quote:
(congress has done this for years

Please provide backup to this claim if you want it to be accepted. Thank you.

Basically, this entire argument has nothing to do with the original question--which is okay, threadjacking is no problem, but this has threadjacked into a personal feud, so I'd like to get back to the original question, if anyone else is interested.

"What if the Republicans don't compromise?" They haven't and they won't. What's going on right now is a joke...put off the debt ceiling for a while, put together a "commission" to decide about taxes and cutting, if they don't decide, an automatic 1.-something trillion dollar cut off the top OR a Balanced Budget Amendment. Where in there, exactly, is there ANYTHING for the democrats? Not a bloody goddamned bit of revenue (unless the "commission" can somehow decide on one--it's to be a bipartisan commission with equal numbers of dems and repubs; does anyone REALLY think revenue will be addressed for longer than a dem to bring it up and all the repubs to say "NO"?????

Heard this today from a pundit: "The Republicans invited Obama to a strip-poker party; he came half naked". That's about it. I say again and will continue to say: "FUCK the Tea Party". They are holding us ALL hostage, and doing it quite effectively.

Go 14th Amendment on their heads and get on with governing...if their "line in the sand" doesn't work for them once, maybe they'll re-think it. It worked on Bush tax cuts, it worked on something else (I forget what it was at the time) and it's working great now. The more successful they are, the more they will use it. They've said they'll try to impeach Ovama if he DOES 14th Amendment them, and they've said they'll try to imp3each him if we default (which isn't UP to him anyway!). Let 'em try and let's see where it goes; it's truly the ONLY option besides giving the Tea Party the whole fucking store!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 12:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW Frem, how're you doing? Still having pain and all?

I'm gettin by, I take it you mean those whole-body-wash episodes from the neuro misfire, rather than the aches and pains of forty some years of a damn rough and tumble existence.
Comes and goes, ain't fun but they're less intense now, and I have full feeling and operation back in seven fingers, one has a kind of knot in the knuckle where it attaches, which is where the whole cascade failure started, but I can't afford to have it looked at, and it works maybe 80% as well as ever, I guess.
The pinky and ring finger of my right hand are still a tiny bit numb/tingly, the nerve damage on that side was randomly worse and will take longer, but honestly I am so used to pain by now it's all just static - I cracked my shin on something apparently last night and didn't even notice till swapping out of uniform and noticing the blood dripping - according to my doc I really ought to have both knees replaced, some minor reconstructive surgery to my jaw to fix a halfbaked, crack-brained desperation patch job done by a dentist who owed me a favor, and some laser work on my eyes so I can actually see in daylight again, cause right now I am all but freakin blind when the sun is up....
But that kinda stuff don't come cheap, and as for pain control, ain't no such thing with the DEA jackboots stomping on anyone who dares, believe me, it warms my little black heart to see them pelted with rocks whenever they show up in Detroit, cause they earned that hatred.

The real thing that has me cussin about my hands is that I can't shoot for crap, that knot makes it too painful to shoot left handed (I am ambidextrous, but have always shot lefty with a pistol cause it gives me the option to NOT shoot, if I can hook em in close and jam the barrel into em under their arm - cause in that position they can't DO anything about it) and the two fingers on my right hand being numb and weak make for pathetic accuracy.
Not that I have any cursed intention of actually shooting anyone or anything, but it's a matter of extreme discomfort to not be fully capable of my own defense since I trust no one else to do it for me, and every time in my life I haven't been in a position to offer lethal response, I've been screwed over, injured, or otherwise abused, so it makes me real damn nervous, it does.
Law be damned(1), I've dig out my joy buzzer (basically a stungun unit rigged up to a glove, with the contact points in the palm) and worn that instead of packing iron.

-Frem
(1) This is funny, while MI is pretty solid about CCW, less-lethal electrical weapons are illegal here, and they only JUST noticed when prosecuting a liquor store owner who used one in self defense, that NO provision or exception within that law exists for the police, making every cop carrying a taser guilty of a felony.
The review for that is on the same docket as the Goldboldo case, so it attracted my attention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:43 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is the adjustment for inflation back to 1960 dollars? A family making $30,000 today is the same as a family making... What? in 1960. (I can do the math, but you have never posted that number)

That would be $4128, according to the math above (if $30,000 then equals $218k now, 30k = .1376 of 218k, so .1376 of 30k = 4128).

So what was the 1960 tax amount on a family of four making $4128? Less than the amount on a family of four making $30k today?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

This is funny, while MI is pretty solid about CCW, less-lethal electrical weapons are illegal here, and they only JUST noticed when prosecuting a liquor store owner who used one in self defense, that NO provision or exception within that law exists for the police, making every cop carrying a taser guilty of a felony.
The review for that is on the same docket as the Goldboldo case, so it attracted my attention.

Oh, shit - THAT is fucking hilarious!

You know what that calls for?

"CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 2:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yanno NIKI, Geezer ain't EVER gonna answer my question! I guess he didn't realize that he was going to run into somebody that can do math.

FREM, while I'm sorry that you're still having those body-wide jolts, I'm glad to hear that they are getting less intense over time. It might help if you took 3-5 grams of fish oil every day (good for repairing nerve damage), B12 (megadoses. There is no such thing as overdosing on B12).

And finally, about 2 grams of ALPHA LIPOIC ACID ("ALA") every day. It's good for all kinds of neuropathies... everything from "pins and needles" to outright jolts. It won't help with the numbness tho. Only time will help with that. All the best.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 2:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is the adjustment for inflation back to 1960 dollars? A family making $30,000 today is the same as a family making... What? in 1960. (I can do the math, but you have never posted that number)

Doesn't really matter, since the 1960 tax rate is 20% all the way down to zero dollars taxable income. Also doesn't matter since I'm discussing how the 1960 tax rates would affect folks here in 2011, not how they affected folks in 1960.

However, ballparking on your earlier post about $30,000 in 1960 being equal to $312,000 or so in 2011, I'd say that $30,000 taxable income today would be equal to around $3,000 in 1960.

So, using the 1960 tax table adjusted for inflation, the 1960 family of four making $3,000 taxable income pays 20% as tax, and the 2011 family making $30,000 also pays 20% of their income as tax (reduced by the credits available in 2011). The 2011 family is still out $3,700 or so when using 1960 rates as opposed to 2010 rates.

ETA: This is also using a family of four as a best case. If they had one or no kids, the 2010 credits would go down and the tax payable would go up.

Also remember that in 1960 folks were paying 3% in SSA taxes and no Medicare, whereas in 2011 they're paying 7.65% for both, so that's another $1,500 out of pocket.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

1960- Standard deduction $1000 or 10%, whichever is lower. Standard exemption $600. For a family of four, that means $2700 is subtracted from the total income of roughly $3000. So they pay 20% on $300. Also, itemized deductions were more generous back then, for example you could deduct medical expenses that exceeded 3% of your AGI, not 7% (as today). So, can we finally put this issue to bed?

Also, if you recall, I said that I would accept 1960 taxes IF we were at 1960 wealth spread. I'll get to that discussion next week.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 6:56 AM

BYTEMITE

This is like watching a tennis match. Kind of neat. No idea which of you two is right.

Question on this: "Standard deduction $1000 or 10%, whichever is lower." Wouldn't that mean people in the upper income tax brackets would opt to only pay the thousand dollars?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 7:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, two math geeks duking it out.

Well, at least somebody finds it entertaining!

Also, I know a bit about taxes because for many years I did my own... I even made a spreadsheet with all those friggin' charts and exclusions and shit. Christ, if somebody just set corporate and capital gains tax policy the same as personal income tax, took out most deductions, we could prolly get by w/o taxing ANY entity under $50,000 and topping out the maximum tax rate at 20%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 7:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
1960- Standard deduction $1000 or 10%, whichever is lower. Standard exemption $600. For a family of four, that means $2700 is subtracted from the total income of roughly $3000. So they pay 20% on $300. Also, itemized deductions were more generous back then, for example you could deduct medical expenses that exceeded 3% of your AGI, not 7% (as today). So, can we finally put this issue to bed?

Also, if you recall, I said that I would accept 1960 taxes IF we were at 1960 wealth spread. I'll get to that discussion next week.

Wrong. Twice.

First, I've been using "Taxable Income", income after exemptions and deductions, in all my calculations, and have stated so multiple times.

Second, (and for the sixth time now) I DON'T CARE WHAT TAXES FOLKS PAID IN 1960. We don't live in 1960. My contention has been, from the first, that applying 1960 tax rates to PEOPLE LIVING IN 2011 - brackets adjusted for inflation or not - will significantly increase the taxes of the folks in the under $50,000 taxable income range who need that money to pay living expenses.

I also don't see the 1960 vs. 2010 wealth spread making any difference in the taxes on these folks under 1960 rates.

I'm starting to believe that you're being purposefully obtuse.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 7:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, if you apply 1960 tax rates to 2010 income, you also have to adjust the tax brackets for inflation.

OK, so you're talking "taxable" income. I missed that part and I'll bet a lot of other people did too. But fact of the matter is, if you're talking about a real-life low- income family ($30,000 barely breaks the poverty level) taxes back then would have been only a little higher than taxes now, given all the other changes to the tax code (which DO count, in real life).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, if you apply 1960 tax rates to 2010 income, you also have to adjust the tax brackets for inflation.

I did adjust the 1960 tax brackets for inflation, as I've noted several times, and already quoted again above. Here it is yet again.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Lets look again at our 2011 family with two kids and a $30,000 taxable income. With 2010 tax rates and credits, they pay no tax, and even get some credits back. Under 1960 rates, even adjusted for inflation, they fall in the lowest 1960 bracket, 20%, and still owe $6,000 income tax. Even after applying EITC and Child Tax credits, which they wouldn't have under 1960 laws, they're still owing $3,225 instead of getting $112 back.

Notice where it says "even adjusted for inflation"? I put that in there because I adjusted the 1960 tax brackets for inflation.

Quote:
But fact of the matter is, if you're talking about a real-life low- income family ($30,000 barely breaks the poverty level) taxes back then would have been only a little higher than taxes now, given all the other changes to the tax code (which DO count, in real life).

Again, (nine times now, I think)I don't care what taxes people were paying in 1960, nor am I comparing 1960 taxes to 2011 taxes. All I'm doing is pointing out that using 1960 rates in 2011, regardless of adjusting tax brackets for inflation, and regardless of the income spread in 1960 or 2011, will punish the poorer folks.

The fact of the matter is that in 2011, a family of four with a $30,000 taxable of income, using 2010 tax rates and credits, would get around $100 back from the government. In 2011, a family of four with a $30,000 taxable income, using 1960 tax rates with the brackets adjusted for inflation, even using 2010 credits, would owe the government about $3200. I figure an additional $3,300 they don't have on hand to spend would have a pretty significant real life impact.

I await your next (probably purposeful) misinterpretation.

BTW, I adjusted the 1960 tax brackets for inflation. Wouldn't want you to forget.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 9:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yup, Byte, I felt the same way a while ago. I hate math (my love has always been language--different side of the brain, you know), so I stopped paying attention to who was rightER a while back. I just don't see Geezer as being in the same category as Raptor, Wulf, Kane, etc., so am sad to see him snarked at in the same way, so I piped in. Just my own feelings. Otherwise, it would be mildly entertaining, and at least not as bad as Sig/Mike's tennis matches with Raptor!

But since the Republicans didn't compromise and we now know the result: They got everything they wanted except not raising the debt ceiling (which was only the Tea Party's pet peeve anyway), and will get even more down the line. End of THAT question.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Question on this: "Standard deduction $1000 or 10%, whichever is lower." Wouldn't that mean people in the upper income tax brackets would opt to only pay the thousand dollars?

Good question.

Without the $1,000 cap, the better off would get 10% off their taxable income no matter how much their income was. If you were making $10,000 or more a year in 1960, the $1,000 standard deduction ceiling would kick in and you could reduce the taxable part of your income by no more than $1,000. If you were only making $5,000, your standard deduction would be limited to 10% of your income, or $500. But remember, you have to adjust for inflation

. A $10,000 income in 1960 was equal to a bit over $100,000 in today's dollars.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 10:34 AM

BYTEMITE

Oh, I get it. Reduction, not replacement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 1:00 PM

Signy, I think you've touched a nerve. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2011 4:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, I'm not purposefully misunderstanding your scenario as I am questioning its validity. If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it a real one. Let's restate the question into more realistic terms, which will drive more towards what I think you're aiming at... or what I think you SHOULD be aiming at: If we were to translate 1960 tax policy into today's environment, after adjusting for inflation (which is the only kind of economic comparison that makes any sense at all) would "the poor" of today be better off than "the poor" of 1960?

By focusing on "taxable" income, you distort the tax policies of today AND yesterday. Real people don't care about their "taxable" income. What they care about is How much will I have to live on after I've paid my taxes?" IF there was ... by way of example... an across-the board $100,000 standard exemption in 1960 (just to exaggerate the point to make it clear), every family would have up to $100,000 tax-free to live on. We could hack around as much as we wanted to about that extra $30,000 "taxable" income, and whether or not the tax rates were fair, but the reality is that all families would have up to $100,000 to live on tax-free, and it wouldn't matter a whole lot what the tax rate was on any additional income. For most families, the discussion of "taxable" income would be irrelevant. Exemptions and deductions are an important part of tax policy to protect the less well-off. They create a base under which no family sinks due to taxes.

That was what I understood YOUR question to be, because I assume you're a thoughtful enough to realize that a simple translation of 1960 tax rates to today's incomes is meaningless. Given what I thought the question was, I would say YES, as long as wealth inequality was also the same

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2011 4:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I'm not purposefully misunderstanding your scenario as I am questioning its validity. If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it a real one.

But I've said several times I'm not trying to make a comparison between folks in 1960 and folks in 2011. I'm just comparing folks in 2011 at 1960 and 2010 tax rates.

Quote:
If we were to translate 1960 taxes into today's environment, after adjusting for inflation (which is the only kind of economic comparison that makes any sense at all) would "the poor" of today be better off than "the poor" of 1960?

Not quite what I'm asking. Try this.

If we were to translate 1960 tax rates into today's economic environment, adjusting for inflation, would the poor in 2011 be better off using 1960 rates rather than 2010 rates?

Quote:
By focusing on "taxable" income, you distort the tax policies of today AND yesterday. Real people don't care about their "taxable" income.

I use taxable income so I don't have to include figuring deductions and exemptions in every computation. Just to be thorough, I'll use AGI and exemptions and deductions in future, even though it won't make much difference.

Quote:
What they care about is How much will I have to live on after I've paid my taxes?"

Which is my point, for people living in 2011.

So lets run the numbers again, starting with AGI this time

Take a 2011 family of four, living at 200% of the poverty level, which would be an AGI of $44,100. They'd reduce that by $14,600 in
exemptions and $11,400 standard deduction, for a taxable income of only $18,100. Tax on that, at 2010 rates, would be $1,877.50. At 1960 rates, adjusted for inflation, it'd be $3,620.00. Since 2010 refundable credits like EITC and Child Tax Credit are based on income, not taxes, they'd be the same in both cases. So with the 1960 rates, the family would have $1,742.50 less to live on after taxes. That's around 4% of their total income.

Lets run it again with $60,000 AGI. still not all that well off.

$60,000 minus $26,000 exemptions and deductions gives taxable income of $34,000. at 2010 rates, that's $4,262.50 tax. At 1960 rates (adjusted for inflation, of course), it's $6,800, or $2,537.50 less to live on after taxes. About 4.25% of total income.

So, using 2010 deductions and exemptions and credits, and adjusting 1960 income tax brackets for inflation, folks in these less lofty income ranges would have 4% to 4.5% less money to live on using 1960 as compared to 2010 tax rates.

At any AGI over $26,000 (where they'd finally have some taxable income), the family of four pays more tax under 1960 rates than 2010 rates.

To look at it another way, using the 1960 rates, adjusted for inflation, anyone with a taxable income under $40,000 or so is taxed at 20% of taxable income. Using 2010 rates, they're taxed at 10% up to $16,750 and at 15% on income over that up to $68,000.

Any way you look at it, folks in 2011 would pay more taxes using 1960 tax rates(adjusted for inflation) than using 2010 rates. This is my point.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2011 8:15 AM

Quote:

Any way you look at it, folks in 2011 would pay more taxes using 1960 tax rates(adjusted for inflation) than using 2010 rates. This is my point.

Which was my point when I said it. Congratulations on just now figuring that out.

And, as I said, that would get rid of the deficit pretty quickly, and start making a real downpayment on paying down our debt.

That WAS the idea, wasn't it? Aren't we supposed to be concerned about the debt and the deficit?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2011 2:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Which was my point when I said it. Congratulations on just now figuring that out.

And, as I said, that would get rid of the deficit pretty quickly, and start making a real downpayment on paying down our debt.

That WAS the idea, wasn't it? Aren't we supposed to be concerned about the debt and the deficit?

Mike your ability to take one snippet out of a long discussion completely out of context is nothing short of amazing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2011 3:39 AM

I took the only pertinent, relevant thing out of your long-winded post.

Sorry it took you that long, and that many posts, to finally come around to making my point for me, but I'm glad you agree with my original point, even though it took you a while to argue your way into that agreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2011 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks Geezer, that's exactly what I said many posts up:

Quote:
if you're talking about a real-life low- income family ($30,000 barely breaks the poverty level) taxes back then would have been only a little higher than taxes now, given all the other changes to the tax code

By your figuring, about 4%, by mine about 1%. And I said I would be willing to accept that, provided we were at 1960 wealth inequity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 5, 2011 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thanks Geezer, that's exactly what I said many posts up:
Quote:
if you're talking about a real-life low- income family ($30,000 barely breaks the poverty level) taxes back then would have been only a little higher than taxes now, given all the other changes to the tax code
By your figuring, about 4%, by mine about 1%. And I said I would be willing to accept that, provided we were at 1960 wealth inequity.

AND provided it got us to 1960 levels of deficit and debt.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2011 11:59 AM