oski003 said:

---

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20this%20view%20often,of%20their%20income%20in%20taxes.

---

movielover said:

---

Tip O'Neil promised Reagan he would cut spending (i.e., reduce the rate of growth); he didn't.

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20this%20view%20often,of%20their%20income%20in%20taxes.

---

Effective tax rate (all forms of taxation) is said to be 5.6% different today than in the 50's for the top 1%, per your link.

How much aggregate revenue to the aiRS would that be annually?

What is the multi-decade long impact on total national debt levels?

What is the impact on wealth disparity gaps existing in US today?

What might be the impact on entrepreneurship fleeing elsewhere or otherwise stifling new innovation?

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

But if Trump was such a great politician and leader, how did he get stymied by all of this? He also had a trifecta to start his term. What did he accomplish with that besides tax cuts?

---

Some would argue the tax cuts was not an accomplishment, but a special interest move for the rich.

---

Trump supporters will claim that the $90 (average tax refund increase) they received is $90 more than the Democrats would give them of THEIR MONEY back.

---

It's not the $90 per voter.
It's the $90,000+ for the few very rich people.



MAGA should look at tax rates in what they think was their golden age.

The 2023 tax yearmeaning the return you'll file in 2024will have the same seven federal income tax brackets as the 2022-2023 season: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.
Under Eisenhower, it was 90%. That's too extreme for me, but you get the point.

Add in sales tax, payroll tax, use taxes (bridges) and our tax structure is FLAT.





Flat tax is a path toward wider income inequality,



which leads to social unrest.



You think the only thing they are fighting about is who gets to call Jerusalem theirs? No. The income disparities are immense. And that breeds jealousies. We see it in this country, too.




Now, I'm sure WifeIsAFurd will educate me once again how I'm wrong. I welcome his response.

Note:
In 1987,88,89, the lowest tax bracket paid 15%, while the highest paid just 28%. Wow.



This chart taken as a whole, we are still operating under the Reagan tax structure hegemony.

---

And thank God we are.

---

Yeah, trillions in debt is fine because Saint Ronnie said so.

---

See, especially, the 1st 3 columns. Revenue and spending have increased annually forever, almost without exception. Spending has increased at a much faster rate. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx

(Side note, we've been running deficits since Clinton - the only President in the last 50 years to run a surplus and the only one to do it more than once since Eisenhower).

---

Reagan tripled the national debt.

"The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

But if Trump was such a great politician and leader, how did he get stymied by all of this? He also had a trifecta to start his term. What did he accomplish with that besides tax cuts?

---

Some would argue the tax cuts was not an accomplishment, but a special interest move for the rich.

---

Trump supporters will claim that the $90 (average tax refund increase) they received is $90 more than the Democrats would give them of THEIR MONEY back.

---

It's not the $90 per voter.
It's the $90,000+ for the few very rich people.



MAGA should look at tax rates in what they think was their golden age.

The 2023 tax yearmeaning the return you'll file in 2024will have the same seven federal income tax brackets as the 2022-2023 season: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.
Under Eisenhower, it was 90%. That's too extreme for me, but you get the point.

Add in sales tax, payroll tax, use taxes (bridges) and our tax structure is FLAT.





Flat tax is a path toward wider income inequality,



which leads to social unrest.



You think the only thing they are fighting about is who gets to call Jerusalem theirs? No. The income disparities are immense. And that breeds jealousies. We see it in this country, too.




Now, I'm sure WifeIsAFurd will educate me once again how I'm wrong. I welcome his response.

Note:
In 1987,88,89, the lowest tax bracket paid 15%, while the highest paid just 28%. Wow.



This chart taken as a whole, we are still operating under the Reagan tax structure hegemony.

---

And thank God we are.

---

Yeah, trillions in debt is fine because Saint Ronnie said so.

---

See, especially, the 1st 3 columns. Revenue and spending have increased annually forever, almost without exception. Spending has increased at a much faster rate. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx

(Side note, we've been running deficits since Clinton - the only President in the last 50 years to run a surplus and the only one to do it more than once since Eisenhower).

---

Reagan tripled the national debt.

"The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

---

Did you open the link I provided and read it? It's from the White House OMB.
Yes, deficits increased under Reagan.
Spending and revenues nearly doubled.
The ratio of deficit to revenues stayed reasonably stable.
Spending problem, not a problem with the rich not paying their fair share.

Notice later years when budget deficit ratios relative to revenues went absolutely bonkers.

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20this%20view%20often,of%20their%20income%20in%20taxes.

---

Effective tax rate (all forms of taxation) is said to be 5.6% different today than in the 50's for the top 1%, per your link.

How much aggregate revenue to the aiRS would that be annually?

What is the multi-decade long impact on total national debt levels?

What is the impact on wealth disparity gaps existing in US today?

What might be the impact on entrepreneurship fleeing elsewhere or otherwise stifling new innovation?

---

Also, the meaning of the top 1% is completely different then from now. The 1% didn't make nearly as much then. It's apples and oranges.

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

But if Trump was such a great politician and leader, how did he get stymied by all of this? He also had a trifecta to start his term. What did he accomplish with that besides tax cuts?

---

Some would argue the tax cuts was not an accomplishment, but a special interest move for the rich.

---

Trump supporters will claim that the $90 (average tax refund increase) they received is $90 more than the Democrats would give them of THEIR MONEY back.

---

It's not the $90 per voter.
It's the $90,000+ for the few very rich people.



MAGA should look at tax rates in what they think was their golden age.

The 2023 tax yearmeaning the return you'll file in 2024will have the same seven federal income tax brackets as the 2022-2023 season: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.
Under Eisenhower, it was 90%. That's too extreme for me, but you get the point.

Add in sales tax, payroll tax, use taxes (bridges) and our tax structure is FLAT.





Flat tax is a path toward wider income inequality,



which leads to social unrest.



You think the only thing they are fighting about is who gets to call Jerusalem theirs? No. The income disparities are immense. And that breeds jealousies. We see it in this country, too.




Now, I'm sure WifeIsAFurd will educate me once again how I'm wrong. I welcome his response.

Note:
In 1987,88,89, the lowest tax bracket paid 15%, while the highest paid just 28%. Wow.



This chart taken as a whole, we are still operating under the Reagan tax structure hegemony.

---

And thank God we are.

---

Yeah, trillions in debt is fine because Saint Ronnie said so.

---

See, especially, the 1st 3 columns. Revenue and spending have increased annually forever, almost without exception. Spending has increased at a much faster rate. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx

(Side note, we've been running deficits since Clinton - the only President in the last 50 years to run a surplus and the only one to do it more than once since Eisenhower).

---

Reagan tripled the national debt.

"The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

---

Did you open the link I provided and read it? It's from the White House OMB.
Yes, deficits increased under Reagan.
Spending and revenues nearly doubled.
The ratio of deficit to revenues stayed reasonably stable.
Spending problem, not a problem with the rich not paying their fair share.

Notice later years when budget deficit ratios relative to revenues went absolutely bonkers.

---

We definitely have a spending problem.
No arguments there.

Maybe if we reversed dark money and Citizens v United we'd not have so many institutionalized (bought) lawmakers and more idealistic Mr. Smith's who go to Washington to serve the people instead of their monied masters.

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

But if Trump was such a great politician and leader, how did he get stymied by all of this? He also had a trifecta to start his term. What did he accomplish with that besides tax cuts?

---

Some would argue the tax cuts was not an accomplishment, but a special interest move for the rich.

---

Trump supporters will claim that the $90 (average tax refund increase) they received is $90 more than the Democrats would give them of THEIR MONEY back.

---

It's not the $90 per voter.
It's the $90,000+ for the few very rich people.



MAGA should look at tax rates in what they think was their golden age.

The 2023 tax yearmeaning the return you'll file in 2024will have the same seven federal income tax brackets as the 2022-2023 season: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.
Under Eisenhower, it was 90%. That's too extreme for me, but you get the point.

Add in sales tax, payroll tax, use taxes (bridges) and our tax structure is FLAT.





Flat tax is a path toward wider income inequality,



which leads to social unrest.



You think the only thing they are fighting about is who gets to call Jerusalem theirs? No. The income disparities are immense. And that breeds jealousies. We see it in this country, too.




Now, I'm sure WifeIsAFurd will educate me once again how I'm wrong. I welcome his response.

Note:
In 1987,88,89, the lowest tax bracket paid 15%, while the highest paid just 28%. Wow.



This chart taken as a whole, we are still operating under the Reagan tax structure hegemony.

---

And thank God we are.

---

Yeah, trillions in debt is fine because Saint Ronnie said so.

---

See, especially, the 1st 3 columns. Revenue and spending have increased annually forever, almost without exception. Spending has increased at a much faster rate. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/hist01z1_fy2024.xlsx

(Side note, we've been running deficits since Clinton - the only President in the last 50 years to run a surplus and the only one to do it more than once since Eisenhower).

---

Reagan tripled the national debt.

"The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html

---

Did you open the link I provided and read it? It's from the White House OMB.
Yes, deficits increased under Reagan.
Spending and revenues nearly doubled.
The ratio of deficit to revenues stayed reasonably stable.
Spending problem, not a problem with the rich not paying their fair share.

Notice later years when budget deficit ratios relative to revenues went absolutely bonkers.

---

We definitely have a spending problem.
No arguments there.

Maybe if we reversed dark money and Citizens v United we'd not have so many institutionalized (bought) lawmakers and more idealistic Mr. Smith's who go to Washington to serve the people instead of their monied masters.

---

Sure we can cut spending but we have a low tax and spending problem. Not just a spending problem. I bet I'm willing to list more specific spending cuts than tequila4kapp anyway. They are always just talk.

---

Quote:

---

The Federal Deficit Is Growing. This Is Why.
Tax receipts dipped unexpectedly last year. The Biden administration blames Republican tax cuts, but the truth is more complicated.


The federal deficit is expected to have hit $2 trillion for the 2023 fiscal year, about $300 billion above the initial forecast of President Biden's administration.

By Jim Tankersley
Oct. 20, 2023

America's federal budget deficit effectively doubled over the year to $2 trillion, a surprising jump given the strength of the economy.

The deficit is the gap between how much the government spends and how much it receives in taxes. It tends to balloon during tough economic times and narrow when growth resumes, though that relationship broke under President Donald J. Trump and now President Biden.

White House officials initially predicted that the deficit would hit about $1.7 trillion in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended last month. That is the official figure that Treasury released on Friday. But it actually hit $2 trillion, when an accounting mirage caused by Mr. Biden's student-loan plan is….

---

concordtom said:

---

That's embarrassing for him.

Still, shameful that Biden is running a deficit of over $1B.
Totally unacceptable!


Okay, it's worse than I thought.
NY Times just ran this story:

Quote:

---

The Federal Deficit Is Growing. This Is Why.
Tax receipts dipped unexpectedly last year. The Biden administration blames Republican tax cuts, but the truth is more complicated.


The federal deficit is expected to have hit $2 trillion for the 2023 fiscal year, about $300 billion above the initial forecast of President Biden's administration.

By Jim Tankersley
Oct. 20, 2023

America's federal budget deficit effectively doubled over the year to $2 trillion, a surprising jump given the strength of the economy.

The deficit is the gap between how much the government spends and how much it receives in taxes. It tends to balloon during tough economic times and narrow when growth resumes, though that relationship broke under President Donald J. Trump and now President Biden.

White House officials initially predicted that the deficit would hit about $1.7 trillion in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended last month. That is the official figure that Treasury released on Friday. But it actually hit $2 trillion, when an accounting mirage caused by Mr. Biden's student-loan plan is….

---

Who has access to the full story?

---

concordtom said:

---

That's embarrassing for him.

Still, shameful that Biden is running a deficit of over $1B.
Totally unacceptable!


Okay, it's worse than I thought.
NY Times just ran this story:

Quote:

---

The Federal Deficit Is Growing. This Is Why.
Tax receipts dipped unexpectedly last year. The Biden administration blames Republican tax cuts, but the truth is more complicated.


The federal deficit is expected to have hit $2 trillion for the 2023 fiscal year, about $300 billion above the initial forecast of President Biden's administration.

By Jim Tankersley
Oct. 20, 2023

America's federal budget deficit effectively doubled over the year to $2 trillion, a surprising jump given the strength of the economy.

The deficit is the gap between how much the government spends and how much it receives in taxes. It tends to balloon during tough economic times and narrow when growth resumes, though that relationship broke under President Donald J. Trump and now President Biden.

White House officials initially predicted that the deficit would hit about $1.7 trillion in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended last month. That is the official figure that Treasury released on Friday. But it actually hit $2 trillion, when an accounting mirage caused by Mr. Biden's student-loan plan is….

---

Who has access to the full story?

---

concordtom said:

---

That's embarrassing for him.

Still, shameful that Biden is running a deficit of over $1B.
Totally unacceptable!


Okay, it's worse than I thought.
NY Times just ran this story:

Quote:

---

The Federal Deficit Is Growing. This Is Why.
Tax receipts dipped unexpectedly last year. The Biden administration blames Republican tax cuts, but the truth is more complicated.


The federal deficit is expected to have hit $2 trillion for the 2023 fiscal year, about $300 billion above the initial forecast of President Biden's administration.

By Jim Tankersley
Oct. 20, 2023

America's federal budget deficit effectively doubled over the year to $2 trillion, a surprising jump given the strength of the economy.

The deficit is the gap between how much the government spends and how much it receives in taxes. It tends to balloon during tough economic times and narrow when growth resumes, though that relationship broke under President Donald J. Trump and now President Biden.

White House officials initially predicted that the deficit would hit about $1.7 trillion in the 2023 fiscal year, which ended last month. That is the official figure that Treasury released on Friday. But it actually hit $2 trillion, when an accounting mirage caused by Mr. Biden's student-loan plan is….

---

Who has access to the full story?

---

Cal88 said:

---

^Meanwhile Newsom is padding his presidential resume doing his world tour at Xi's...

---

Big C said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^Meanwhile Newsom is padding his presidential resume doing his world tour at Xi's...

---

He's got a list of things to appear Presidential. There's the debate with Desantis and then, supposedly, in three weeks, he's going to pardon a turkey.

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

Big C said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

^Meanwhile Newsom is padding his presidential resume doing his world tour at Xi's...

---

He's got a list of things to appear Presidential. There's the debate with Desantis and then, supposedly, in three weeks, he's going to pardon a turkey.

---

You gotta be pretty desperate to agree to debate a guy who's not even running for President. Even if you come out of the debate looking better than Newsom (a virtual impossibility given the composition of the corporate media), who cares? Much as I despise Newsom for being the Democrat version of DeSantis (huge ambition, no actual values, panders like a *****), DeSantis is the one who is more likely to come out of this the big loser.

---

dajo9 said:

---

You have to be willingly blind to pursue tequila4kapp's reasoning
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S

---

Huge gathering underway for the inaugural @arc_forum (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) conference in London. (It has been described as a counter to the WEF.) Speakers at the three-day event include @jordanbpeterson, @VivekGRamaswamy, new US House @SpeakerJohnson,… pic.twitter.com/pNzno7Zrd9

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) October 30, 2023

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You have to be willingly blind to pursue tequila4kapp's reasoning
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S

---

There were two strata of data above, one where percentage of debt was in the @15-20% range and a second where it was in a higher range. Thus, I incorrectly described those years as 'relatively stable'. My mistake.

You have now pivoted to measuring debt relative to GDP. I understand economists generally measure it that way because it assesses a nation's ability to service the debt. I might posit that is a different question from what I was discussing - the cause of debt being more tied to excess spending than tax rates on the rich.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Ford and GM announce escalating losses on their EV segments between 1-1.5B per quarter.

---