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.
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.
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.
In 2009 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.0% of their AGI in federal individual income taxes.
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.
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
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.
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.
It’s usually conservatives who pretend the marginal rate is the effective rate.
Wait, let me get this straight, you are seriously using as an example the fact that spending went down after WWII? I wonder if the fact that millions of soldiers were discharged and thousands of planes, tanks, and ships were no longer being built had anything to do with it?
That’s like giving up 10 hours a week if pay, voluntarily, and then yelling at your family for spending too much on food and rent. All we need to do is to go back to the tax rates of the Clinton years - you know, that depressed economy.
Uh, this has nothing to do with WW2.
I am talking about how President Eisenhower balanced the budget while cutting taxes.
The federal government takes in $2.469 trillion in revenue and spends $3.796 trillion.
That means 35% of what the government spends needs to be borrowed.
We need to cut spending.
Or increase taxes.
But if you’re dead set on cutting spending, that’ll work too. What do you wanna cut ? Be specific.
Wanna be specific on whose taxes you’d raise? I’ll give you a hint. It would have to be everyone’s, but a lot. The days of 47% not paying income taxes would end in a heartbeat.
There is an easier way though. Rescind ALL the Bush tax cuts and hold spending growth to 2% per year for the next ten years. Surplus in year 10. Nothing about that is ridiculously difficult.
I would cut the budgets of the departments of transportation, housing and urban development, homeland security, agriculture and interior by 50%.
Eliminate the departments of education, energy, commerce and labor.
Increase the Medicare eligibility age to 70.
Cap the growth of federal spending to 1.5% per year.
That’s another way to do it and I’d support all of that too.
It is at least a better answer than “Raise taxes on rich people” followed by nothing else.
OK, let’s do the math.
Cut by 50%:
Transportation: $40b
HUD: $21b
Homeland Sec: $30b
Ag: $65b
Interior: (ETA) Read it wrong - this saves $10b
Eliminate:
Education: ~$90b (a lot of ARRA funding went here so it’s unclear what future savings will be)
Energy: $24b (although quite a bit of this simply has to be spent unless you’re just going to leave nuclear energy and bombs unmananged)
Commerce: $10b
Labor: $10b
Medicare savings: The most recent numbers I could find indicate that of the 65+ cohort, those in the 65-70 bracket spend about 18% of that. So let’s say you’re cutting Medicare by 18%. That’s about $97 billion in savings (using 2010 numbers).
Total saved: ~$397 billion. Congratulations, you’re almost halfway to eliminating the deficit. What else would you like to cut? Can we talk about revenue yet?
Sign me up. 
You might want to phase the tax increases and spending caps in to avoid a huge recession rather than a minor one, but in the end it’s probably the best course if we can’t get a better compromise plan.
But the end result is exactly right - you cannot get there with spending cuts alone. Revenue must get back up to historical norms, through both growth and tax increases.