# Liberal Tax Myths **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421 "2013-02-26T05:54:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/41 "2013-02-28T06:46:15Z")
I am not sure what the “myth” here is supposed to be, but I am pretty sure that it is a myth that liberals think that high tax rates on the wealthy are a good thing, or any sort of end in themselves. At best they are a useful and sensible policy option in some circumstances, a minor evil that it is best (in some circumstances) to suffer in the service of some greater good. A means, not an end. Liberals don’t love taxes, they just love some of the social goods that taxes enable (which are not limited to what can be bought by government spending, by the way) more than they hate taxes. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/42 "2013-02-28T07:39:28Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Wouldn’t you need to look at _total tax revenue_ as opposed to _income tax revenue_ to make that sort of statement? That’s true but among liberals it seems pretty standard to simply cite the higher marginal rates as prima facie evidence that the rich used to pay a much higher share. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That hardly seems progressive. What? > [@](#): > > And corporate tax revenues as well. Corporate tax revenues basically fell off the chart. I was under the impression that even liberals recognized the silliness of corporate taxes nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/43 "2013-02-28T07:50:16Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I was under the impression that even liberals recognized the silliness of corporate taxes nowadays. Yeah, because it’s not like corporations make use of the commons that must be paid for by somebody, or anything. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/44 "2013-02-28T14:33:14Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I was under the impression that even liberals recognized the silliness of corporate taxes nowadays. I think many of us would agree with you that the current paradigm of high rates that are basically paid only by those corporations without the political clout to wring loopholes out of Washington is not the way to go. But that’s not to say that corporate taxes overall are a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/45 "2013-02-28T16:11:12Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That’s true but among liberals it seems pretty standard to simply cite the higher marginal rates as prima facie evidence that the rich used to pay a much higher share. It’s typically stated as prima facie evidence that the rich used to pay a much higher share _of their income in income taxes_. Which is true, but overstated. Either way, that is not what your claimed addressed. You said: > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > So basically, the liberal argument that, in the past, we relied more heavily on the rich for our tax revenue falls flat in my opinion. I don’t know if that’s true, even leaving aside the subjectivity of the claim. Either way, your stats don’t even begin to address that, so your conclusion is very premature. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2013, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/46 "2013-02-28T23:30:48Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What? If you make significantly more money and you pay the same percentage of your income in taxes, then that is not progressive. > [@](#): > > I was under the impression that even liberals recognized the silliness of corporate taxes nowadays. Not when you have a 15% dividends rate. I think the global corporate tax system has suffered from a race to the bottom and it may be irreversible. But a corporate level tax still makes good sense because you have a choice. You can choose a corporate structure that does not pay a corporate level tax but hits the shareholder with the corporate level income every year (like an LLC, partnerhship, S Corp REIT, etc.). But if you are going to insulate the shareholder form the corporate level income in the year in which it was earned, then we must tax at the corporate level otherwise corporations will become a vehicle to indefinitely defer income. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/47 "2013-03-03T03:06:30Z")
Can we simply get a basic figure for comparison’s sake? How much did the average household making $250K to $2M pay in all taxes in the 1950’s vs the 2010s? ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/48 "2013-03-03T13:45:39Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You may be under a misunderstanding on how tax deductions work. Let me give you a simple example: The tax rate is 60%. You earn $100. If you give $50 to charity then you pay $30 in tax. Your income statement looks like this: > > Income: 100 a > Less charitable deductions: (50) b > Taxable income: 50 c = a - b > Taxes: 30 d = c\*60% > After-tax income: 20 I would think that your after tax would be 70 and you’d have an effective tax rate of 30%. That is you calculate after tax and effective based on gross income. ---
**Author:** ![Manlob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Manlob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manlob)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421/49 "2013-03-03T19:53:57Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Can we simply get a basic figure for comparison’s sake? How much did the average household making $250K to $2M pay in all taxes in the 1950’s vs the 2010s? The table below compares effective federal tax rate for 1952 and 2012 for married filing jointly with 2 children, and taking standard deduction. Adjusted gross income (AGI) is inflation adjusted to 2012 dollars. ```auto AGI 1952 2012 $ 40,600 8.5% 0.0% $ 55,000 11.4% 6.0% $ 100,000 16.6% 10.3% $ 250,000 28.7% 20.2% $ 1,000,000 58.1% 31.0% $ 2,000,000 71.5% 33.0% ``` Those who benefited the most from the changes since 1952 have the lower and higher levels of income. Those with AGI between $55,000 and $1 million saw a 47% reduction or less since 1952. Those with AGI of $2 million saw a 53.8% reduction, and those with AGI of $40,600 saw a 100% reduction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-tax-myths/651421.md?page=2)