The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:14 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
Taxes on the rich under President Eisenhower

Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.

Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups.

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 45.9
1954 = 39.3
1955 = 36.8
1956 = 37.4
1957 = 38.6
1958 = 36.9
1959 = 33.8
1960 = 33.1
1961 = 31.5

$500,000-$1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 46.3
1954 = 38.7
1955 = 35.6
1956 = 36.7
1957 = 36.6
1958 = 36.0
1959 = 32.1
1960 = 30.8
1961 = 29.1

Over $1,000,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)

1953 = 49.3
1954 = 38.8
1955 = 35.8
1956 = 36.1
1957 = 40.0
1958 = 33.1
1959 = 30.6
1960 = 31.3
1961 = 27.2

SOURCE: William Williams, The Changing Progressivity of the Federal Income Tax, National Tax Journal (1964)

Quote:
In 1954, for example, the 0.3 percent of the taxpayers with more than $40,000 AGI reported almost $13 billion in AGI (including 100 percent of capital gains but excluding exempt interest); yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent—far from the infamous rates conjured up by the Code tables.
SOURCE: Eisenhower-Era Marxist-Confiscatory Taxation: Requiem for the Rhetoric of Rate Reduction for the Rich

http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent....ntext=law_pubs

So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:27 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
George Romney for example earned $129,674 AGI in 1955 (which was a very high income) and paid $45,651 in income tax, which is an effective tax rate of 35.2%, much lower than the marginal rate.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...6?OpenDocument
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:28 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
I'm not exactly what your point is, but I do find it interesting that 30% seems to be the average low-end effective tax rate. For 2009 it was 22%. And, conveniently enough, 30% is exactly what the Buffet Rule would set as the effective tax rate those with AGI over $1 mill. Sounds like a great way to raise revenue and be consistent with Eisenhower policies.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:28 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
This is something I've been wondering about for some time, so I'll look forward to more readable info from other posters. The link in the OP is the mother of all TLDRs.

I think an important thing to note, though, is that even the rates reported in the OP are much higher than those paid by "the rich" today, so it's hard to argue that increasing taxes on the order of what Obama wants to do would be particularly harmful to the economy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:34 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
Here is a chart with similar numbers for today. People today making over $77 million pay an effective 20% tax rate, less than those making between 10 and 77 million who pay 24%. Still much less than during the Eisenhower years.

But this all goes to show that slight increases in the top brackets are unlikely to stifle innovation, since it is not clear that the very rich who pay 20% (suckers! says Mitt) are much more innovative than the poor souls who make only $10 million and pay 24%.

Last edited by Voyager; 09-17-2012 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:37 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
George Romney for example earned $129,674 AGI in 1955 (which was a very high income) and paid $45,651 in income tax, which is an effective tax rate of 35.2%, much lower than the marginal rate.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...6?OpenDocument
It is mathematically impossible for anyone's effective tax rate to be equal to their highest marginal rate, so I fail to see your point. For the rich the capital gains rate is far more important than the marginal income rate.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:38 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
I'm not exactly what your point is, but I do find it interesting that 30% seems to be the average low-end effective tax rate. For 2009 it was 22%. And, conveniently enough, 30% is exactly what the Buffet Rule would set as the effective tax rate those with AGI over $1 mill. Sounds like a great way to raise revenue and be consistent with Eisenhower policies.
The point is that the rich didn't pay anything close to 91% which liberals claim they did.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:39 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid. [...]

So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.
Yes, I think everybody knows that effective tax rate isn't the same thing as the top marginal tax rate. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to argue that most top earners in the Eisenhower years actually turned over 91% of their incomes to the government, or anything close to it.

So what is your point? That imposing high marginal tax rates on top earners won't make them significantly poorer? Goody, that sounds like a win-win: more money for the government's tax revenues, but no negative impact on the top taxpayer's standards of living.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-17-2012 at 07:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:44 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
The capital gains effective tax rate was 13-15% during Eisenhower.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...s-20120827.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:47 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The capital gains effective tax rate was 13-15% during Eisenhower.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...s-20120827.pdf
What was the tax rate on "carried interest" back then?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-17-2012, 07:52 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
What was the tax rate on "carried interest" back then?
Interest income was tax-exempt.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:09 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The point is that the rich didn't pay anything close to 91% which liberals claim they did.
What liberals claim that? As I noted above, anybody who understands even the most rudimentary facts about progressive taxation knows that top marginal rates are different from effective rates.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:14 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Your cite shows top income earners paying a significantly higher rate then they do today.

Quote:
yet their effective tax rates ranged from as little as 27 percent to 39 percent
Today people like Mitt Romney are paying 14 percent and want to lower that even further.

Your gotcha look at the liberals lying really fails here. Many liberals would like to see the rates under Eisenhower return even if it isn't actually 90% because it's double what the wealthiest Americans are paying now.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:27 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
You still don't get it. The lower effective rate was because people had to invest their money or lose it to taxes. The opportunities to invest out of the country were limited, as were the 'casino style' financial instruments behind our most recent collapse. I can't speak for others, but I have no concern about people paying an effective 0% tax rate if they are investing enough of their income into the domestic economy.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:28 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The capital gains effective tax rate was 13-15% during Eisenhower.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...s-20120827.pdf
Which indicates that the marginal tax rates contributed more to the clear increase in revenues (relatively speaking) from then versus today.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-17-2012, 08:30 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You still don't get it. The lower effective rate was because people had to invest their money or lose it to taxes. The opportunities to invest out of the country were limited, as were the 'casino style' financial instruments behind our most recent collapse. I can't speak for others, but I have no concern about people paying an effective 0% tax rate if they are investing enough of their income into the domestic economy.
And CEOs were less greedy to get gigantic paychecks from their companies when the government was going to take most of it at the highest levels. So they were moderate, and there was more money left over for investment, the employees, and the stockholders.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:15 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Interest income was tax-exempt.
Well, I think you have it backwards. Interest paid might have been tax exempt, but not interest earned.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:34 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
The tax reforms that came afterwards lowered marginal rates, but effective rates stayed the same. A true 91% tax rate would be disastrous. It would never happen anyway. Congressmen pay taxes, and no congressman will vote to give up almost all of his money.

So yeah, when anyone talks about going back to those rates, they are speaking out of serious ignorance. Those rates existed because the tax system was grossly unfair. Some really rich people paid no taxes, which is why the AMT was imposed. 91% was the "sucker" rate, meant for those either too stupid or too politically unconnected to avoid it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:38 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
The tax reforms that came afterwards lowered marginal rates, but effective rates stayed the same. A true 91% tax rate would be disastrous. It would never happen anyway. Congressmen pay taxes, and no congressman will vote to give up almost all of his money.

So yeah, when anyone talks about going back to those rates, they are speaking out of serious ignorance. Those rates existed because the tax system was grossly unfair. Some really rich people paid no taxes, which is why the AMT was imposed. 91% was the "sucker" rate, meant for those either too stupid or too politically unconnected to avoid it.
So your argument is that extremely unfair tax rates will lead to an economic boom and budget surplus, and that's a reason to make the current tax system even less fair. I wonder why current politicians aren't running with that one.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:48 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Tax policy has little to do with economic growth. I don't think you'd find any economists agreeing that the notoriously inefficient system we had in place in the 1950s was a pro-growth factor.

In fact, it's hard to argue that a 91% marginal tax rate doesn't seriously alter economic decisionmaking. When path A means you pay 0% and path B means you pay 91%, everyone's going to go down path A, whether or not that's better for the economy as a whole.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:55 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Tax policy has little to do with economic growth. I don't think you'd find any economists agreeing that the notoriously inefficient system we had in place in the 1950s was a pro-growth factor.
Really? That's the entire argument for lowering taxes.

In fact, it's hard to argue that a 91% marginal tax rate doesn't seriously alter economic decisionmaking. When path A means you pay 0% and path B means you pay 91%, everyone's going to go down path A, whether or not that's better for the economy as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Almost everybody went down path A. The economy boomed. So it couldn't have been that bad.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:02 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Or, other factors were more important than tax policy. Such as population growth.

Even if the whole thing "worked" somehow, I fail to see why we'd want to have a tax rate almost no one paid. What's the point of that? If the effective rate on rich people is 35%, why not just dispense with the stupidity and just tax them all at 35%?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:03 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Or, other factors were more important than tax policy. Such as population growth.

Even if the whole thing "worked" somehow, I fail to see why we'd want to have a tax rate almost no one paid. What's the point of that? If the effective rate on rich people is 35%, why not just dispense with the stupidity and just tax them all at 35%?
To make them invest in domestic economic growth instead of moving the money overseas or gambling with it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:11 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
The effective income tax rate on the top 1% of taxpayers was 33% in 1952.

In 1963 it was 27%.

SOURCE: Joseph A. Pechman, The rich, the poor, and the taxes they pay (1969)

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docli...hapenchman.pdf

Last edited by moonshot925; 09-17-2012 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:43 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
To make them invest in domestic economic growth instead of moving the money overseas or gambling with it.
If you look at exactly what deductions were used, that wasn't what the incentives were. It was mainly just politically motivated exemptions, as it still is today. There are very few tax breaks which are endorsed by economists.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-18-2012, 12:11 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If you look at exactly what deductions were used, that wasn't what the incentives were. It was mainly just politically motivated exemptions, as it still is today. There are very few tax breaks which are endorsed by economists.
So economists recommend a 100% tax rate? Your arguments are very odd. It's very simple, either taxes have an effect on the economy, or they don't. If they do, then I'd say we encourage that, but if you're right and they don't, why shouldn't they be raised to pay our bills? Or do you just want to play both sides of three different coins depending on which one of your arguments makes no sense?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-18-2012, 01:47 AM
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
I think that it's nice to know what these numbers actually are.

That being said, the 50's were a time of expansion. I don't think it's argued by serious economists that higher taxes on rich folks during a time of expansion would be helpful. After all the more money in private hands, the more investment. The path some leftist economists suggest is to raise taxes in order to pay for make-work projects during a recession. That's what happened in the 30's and that worked out so well, don't ya know?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-18-2012, 08:16 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
A true 91% tax rate would be disastrous.
So what? Who the hell is arguing in favor of a 91% true, i.e., effective tax rate? Can you cite even one instance of anybody seriously advocating this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher
So yeah, when anyone talks about going back to those rates, they are speaking out of serious ignorance.
Since NOBODY is actually "talking about going back to" an illusory 91% effective tax rate, your criticism is pointless.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2012, 08:48 AM
Who_me? Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The effective income tax rate on the top 1% of taxpayers was 33% in 1952.

In 1963 it was 27%.

SOURCE: Joseph A. Pechman, The rich, the poor, and the taxes they pay (1969)

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docli...hapenchman.pdf
Great! What's that? Double what it is today? Let's double the effective tax on the rich. That is what you're advocating... correct?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2012, 09:40 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
So what? Who the hell is arguing in favor of a 91% true, i.e., effective tax rate? Can you cite even one instance of anybody seriously advocating this?


Since NOBODY is actually "talking about going back to" an illusory 91% effective tax rate, your criticism is pointless.
I am gratified to hear that no one supports going back to 50s tax rates. Sometimes I'm very glad to be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-18-2012, 09:43 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who_me? View Post
Great! What's that? Double what it is today? Let's double the effective tax on the rich. That is what you're advocating... correct?
I think the current effective rate is around 25%. Maybe 20%. Given that the current top rate is 33%, it would seem that reducing deductions would be more effective than raising tax rates, which would just be avoided anyway. of course, that's what Congressmen want, they don't want to pay higher taxes. They want to tax "people like me", not "me, personally".
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-18-2012, 09:48 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I think the current effective rate is around 25%. Maybe 20%. Given that the current top rate is 33%, it would seem that reducing deductions would be more effective than raising tax rates, which would just be avoided anyway. of course, that's what Congressmen want, they don't want to pay higher taxes. They want to tax "people like me", not "me, personally".
I'm all for reducing reductions. It's just a lot hared to do than changing a number from 35 to 38.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-18-2012, 10:36 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
If we're talking about comprehensive tax reform, definitely. If we're only talking about reforming the top income groups then it should be less hard. Rich people can choose between fewer deductions or a higher rate. Problem is, Congressmen have the ultimate vote and they don't want to pay higher taxes, so they usually opt for higher rates and exemptions carved out just for them and their close supporters.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-18-2012, 10:49 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I am gratified to hear that no one supports going back to 50s tax rates.
There may be some people who support reinstating the MARGINAL tax rates that were in effect in the 1950s (when the top marginal rate was 91%).

But nobody supports having a maximum EFFECTIVE tax rate of 91%. So your dire warnings about how disastrous that would be are completely superfluous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher
Sometimes I'm very glad to be wrong.
Then I should think this thread must be making you pretty happy.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:03 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Oh, I'm sure you could find any number of posters on this MB who would like there to be a 90% tax bracket for "the rich". But no one with any actual ability to change the rates (that is, people in Congress and the Administration) is advocating it, so it's really just a strawman.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:12 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
There may be some people who support reinstating the MARGINAL tax rates that were in effect in the 1950s (when the top marginal rate was 91%).
How is supporting high marginal rates that aren't effective a defensible position? It's more efficient to just have the effective rate be the marginal rate.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:25 AM
Mentor and Liar Mentor and Liar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The point is that the rich didn't pay anything close to 91% which liberals claim they did.
Where are these claimants? I am personally aware of only one such post in which the concept of a "marginal tax rate" was misunderstood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If you look at exactly what deductions were used, that wasn't what the incentives were. It was mainly just politically motivated exemptions, as it still is today. There are very few tax breaks which are endorsed by economists.
What were these "politically motivated exemptions"? You do realize that the mother of all tax avoidance schemes is reinvestment? I would like to meet the economist that does not endorse reinvestment.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:32 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Liberals often claim that the rich paid a 91% income tax rate during the Eisenhower years, and while it is true that the top marginal rate was 91% from 1954 to 1963 that is not what matters. The important part is how much the rich actually paid.
Liberals are usually talking about the marginal rate, not the effective rate, because THAT is what they want to change. And very few people want to move back to 91%.

Quote:
Here were the effective individual income tax rates of the 3 very high income AGI groups....

$200,000-$500,000 group: Tax as Share of Amended AGI (%)...

So the rich really didn't pay anything close to 91% during the Eisenhower years, and their effective tax rate was steadily reduced.
Noone ever said they did.

See the word "amended" before "AGI" You know why that's there? Its because in the past, (from 1954 to 1986) you didn't have to pay taxes on half your capital gains. They "amended" the AGI to gross it up for the exempted capital gains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Interest income was tax-exempt.
You should google "carried interest" and catch up on what people are talking about. Carried interest is what we call it when a hedge fund manager pays capital gains rates on their compensation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Or, other factors were more important than tax policy. Such as population growth.
The baby boomers were kids for a lot of that growth. Lemonade stands and newspaper routes have a limited effect on the economy.

Quote:
Even if the whole thing "worked" somehow, I fail to see why we'd want to have a tax rate almost no one paid. What's the point of that? If the effective rate on rich people is 35%, why not just dispense with the stupidity and just tax them all at 35%?
Do you seriously not understand the concept of a progressive system?

What percentage of people do you think pay the top marginal rate today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I think the current effective rate is around 25%. Maybe 20%. Given that the current top rate is 33%, it would seem that reducing deductions would be more effective than raising tax rates, which would just be avoided anyway. of course, that's what Congressmen want, they don't want to pay higher taxes. They want to tax "people like me", not "me, personally".
Taxes are not as easy to avoid as you might think. Top rate is 35% (39.6 starting next year).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
There may be some people who support reinstating the MARGINAL tax rates that were in effect in the 1950s (when the top marginal rate was 91%).

But nobody supports having a maximum EFFECTIVE tax rate of 91%. So your dire warnings about how disastrous that would be are completely superfluous.

Then I should think this thread must be making you pretty happy.
The highest top marginal rate I have heard a serious tax policy person talk about is 50%
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
How is supporting high marginal rates that aren't effective a defensible position? It's more efficient to just have the effective rate be the marginal rate.
I'm not sure you understand how the word effective is used when we talk about effective tax rates.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:34 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
How is supporting high marginal rates that aren't effective a defensible position? It's more efficient to just have the effective rate be the marginal rate.
That would be what is called a "flat tax".

A progressive income tax system has so-called "marginal" tax rates that apply to different parts of one's income. E.g., the first $20,000 of income might be taxed at rate x%, while everything from $20K to $80K is taxed at a y% rate, and everything over $80K is taxed at z%, to take a very simplistic example.

The effective tax rate is the total amount of income tax one pays under such a system, divided by the total amount of income one has. For instance, if you make $22,000 of income, you'll be taxed x% of $20K plus y% of $2K. So your effective tax rate will be greater than x%, but probably much closer to x% than to y%.

The technical term "effective tax rate" is not meant to imply that the tax system is necessarily working effectively or efficiently or doing what it's supposed to do, which is how you seem to be misunderstanding it. One's effective tax rate is just the weighted average of different marginal tax rates on different amounts of one's income.

If you want the effective tax rate to be a single percentage amount that applies equally to every dollar of one's income, then as I said, that's a flat tax.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-18-2012, 05:53 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Right, and the easiest way to get the effective tax rate for the top earners up from the 22-25% it is today to the 27-30% it was under Eisenhower is to increase the top marginal rates by a few percent. And the easiest way to do that is to only extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all but the highest brackets. Which is, unsurprisingly, exactly what the Democratic platform calls for.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-18-2012, 06:05 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I think the current effective rate is around 25%. Maybe 20%. Given that the current top rate is 33%, it would seem that reducing deductions would be more effective than raising tax rates, which would just be avoided anyway. of course, that's what Congressmen want, they don't want to pay higher taxes. They want to tax "people like me", not "me, personally".
Ryan and Romney are talking about removing deductions. Except they seem to refuse to say which deductions they want to remove which indicates the problem - each and every deduction has a lot of people fervently for it and very few people fervently against it. They know that if they ever got specific they'd catch hell either from their donors or from the real people. And maybe both.
Maybe on the average these things can be revenue neutral, but for people taking advantage of a deduction more than average it is a tax increase.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea - just a politically infeasible idea. What you'd get is the tax cut and no or very few deduction cuts, and thus a loss of revenue. Which might actually be the goal.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-18-2012, 06:15 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
They know that if they ever got specific they'd catch hell either from their donors or from the real people. And maybe both.
Believe it or not there are still 'real people' that are also donors to the Romney Campaign. It's a strange reality we live in.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-18-2012, 08:23 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
In 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.0% of their AGI in federal individual income taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

So the effective income tax rate on the top 1% is slightly less than it was in the 1950s.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-18-2012, 08:39 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
In 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.0% of their AGI in federal individual income taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

So the effective income tax rate on the top 1% is slightly less than it was in the 1950s.
Define "slightly". If I take the guys making $1M or more in your OP, they paid about 38% (just an eyeball average from your numbers). That's more than a 50% increase over 24%. It would be about the same for the other upper income groups in your OP.

So, unless you show your work here, I'm not buying the "slightly less" conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:46 PM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Define "slightly". If I take the guys making $1M or more in your OP, they paid about 38% (just an eyeball average from your numbers). That's more than a 50% increase over 24%. It would be about the same for the other upper income groups in your OP.

So, unless you show your work here, I'm not buying the "slightly less" conclusion.
Let's look at the top 1%.

In 1956 458,133 returns had income greater than $30,000 AGI out of a total of 46,258,646 returns. These were the top 1%.

Those taxpayers had a total AGI of $24.271 billion (including 100% of reported capital gains) and paid $7.130 billion in individual income taxes.

That is an effective income tax rate of 29.4% on the top 1% of taxpayers in 1956.

Slightly greater than the 24.0% rate in 2009.

SOURCE: Statistics of income, Individual income tax returns for 1956

http://ia600305.us.archive.org/10/it...co1956unit.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-18-2012, 11:56 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Slightly greater than the 24.0% rate in 2009.
This thread has been a great example of the range and usefulness of the word 'slightly.' Keep it up soon it will become meaningless.


A 30 percent marginal rate is only slightly less than a 91 percent marginal rate. It would seem the non existent liberals you're railing against only made a slight error.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-19-2012, 12:10 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
Let's look at the top 1%.

In 1956 458,133 returns had income greater than $30,000 AGI out of a total of 46,258,646 returns. These were the top 1%.

Those taxpayers had a total AGI of $24.271 billion (including 100% of reported capital gains) and paid $7.130 billion in individual income taxes.

That is an effective income tax rate of 29.4% on the top 1% of taxpayers in 1956.

Slightly greater than the 24.0% rate in 2009.

SOURCE: Statistics of income, Individual income tax returns for 1956

http://ia600305.us.archive.org/10/it...co1956unit.pdf
OK, that's a 22.5% increase. You have a strange sense of what the word "slightly" means. Can you imagine Obama proposing to raise taxes by 22.5% and the headline reading: Obama Proposes Slight Tax Increase? The right wing pundits would have a field day.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-19-2012, 01:22 AM
moonshot925 moonshot925 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
OK, that's a 22.5% increase. You have a strange sense of what the word "slightly" means. Can you imagine Obama proposing to raise taxes by 22.5% and the headline reading: Obama Proposes Slight Tax Increase? The right wing pundits would have a field day.
Why would Obama need to propose raising taxes? Why can't the federal government live within its means? President Eisenhower with the 83rd Congress cut spending and taxes. We should do the same now.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-19-2012, 01:41 AM
fumster fumster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot925 View Post
The point is that the rich didn't pay anything close to 91% which liberals claim they did.
It's usually conservatives who pretend the marginal rate is the effective rate.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.