1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

The Bush tax cuts which the left cried about were amazingly progressive. They basically dropped the share for the bottom 50% to next to nothing. 

Without the SALT cap, the Trump tax cuts would have likely reduced the burden on the top 1%. But...you can't just ignore that. The fact that Trump did it out of spite (to punish people in states that voted for Clinton) instead of ideology is irrelevant to the actual outcome. 

And Trump isn't fiscally conservative. Trump has no actual political philosophy or principles beyond punishing those that oppose him. Or make fun of him.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying that it was out of step with other income tax changes over the last 20-30 years so I can't attribute that to this overall trend you're arguing for. 

It was a change that hit high earners in areas with high local tax burdens the hardest, which is going to hurt the 1% and 5% disproportionately.

But most tax changes over the last 20-30 years didn't have this effect. The change in share of tax revenue from the top earners was more online with their income outpacing inflation than policy changes. 

They were natural changes moving with the market. Not artificial changes caused by tax policy.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think this largely correlates with what's colloquially referred to as the wealth gap.

More people at the top are taking a larger share of the pie. And because those shares of the pie are subject to higher tax rates, this is showing up in the tax revenue as you're showing.

This doesn't change the basic underlying truth that the US tax system is VERY progressive compared to any other advanced economy in Western nations. I'm not disputing that - I wholly agree with it.

I'm saying that it's not as though tax policy changes has led to higher income tax liabilities for HCEs. I'm saying that more income is concentrating among HCEs, so that means more overall income is subject to higher tax rates, and is showing up in the data you're sharing.

But the tax burden for the top is growing faster than income at the top. That's the point. Even when you adjust for the top 1% getting a greater share of income, their share of taxes is rising faster.

8 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Except for the part where we normalize for AGI and show the burden still growing.

Damn facts killing liberal talking points again...

But enjoy being poor.

This goes to how we determine the top 1%.

If you're taking the top 1% as "sort all earners by AGI descending and cut off when you reach 1% of the population", per capita wealth can concentrate in that 1% and be subject to higher "real" taxation because tax rates pegged (imperfect) inflation numbers can lag behind earnings growth that outpaces inflation.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This goes to how we determine the top 1%.

If you're taking the top 1% as "sort all earners by AGI descending and cut off when you reach 1% of the population", per capita wealth can concentrate in that 1% and be subject to higher "real" taxation because tax rates pegged (imperfect) inflation numbers can lag behind earnings growth that outpaces inflation.

I've read your sentence 3 times and still don't follow. Inflation has nothing to do with it. Every year we look at the total income reported by the top1% of filers and the income taxes paid by those filers. If they earn more, the AGI goes up as does the AGI share. Taxes are calculated on an annual basis.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

But the tax burden for the top is growing faster than income at the top. That's the point. Even when you adjust for the top 1% getting a greater share of income, their share of taxes is rising faster.

Right, because of our progressive tax structure. Because after x dollars you're paying something like $0.39 for every dollar earned in taxes. So every extra dollar among this group is taxed an orde of magnitude more than any gains among the bottom x percent.

My point is it's not as though there have been demonstrable policy changes to effect that, it's a factor of HCEs earning a bigger piece.

If (theoretically) the "wealth gap" was reduced, the charts you shared would show a reversed trend. I don't want that, as the wealth gap has been kind to me lol, but mathematically that's how it would change absent changes to policy. 

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Right, because of our progressive tax structure. Because after x dollars you're paying something like $0.39 for every dollar earned in taxes. So every extra dollar among this group is taxed an orde of magnitude more than any gains among the bottom x percent.

My point is it's not as though there have been demonstrable policy changes to effect that, it's a factor of HCEs earning a bigger piece.

If (theoretically) the "wealth gap" was reduced, the charts you shared would show a reversed trend. I don't want that, as the wealth gap has been kind to me lol, but mathematically that's how it would change absent changes to policy. 

OK, I get your point. That tax brackets aren't keeping up with income growth, so the added income as a % share of total AGI is taxed at the highest marginal rate. I really don't know the answer if the tax brackets shift as fast as income does. But if they don't -- that means we are simply even more progressive than we thought because the income thresholds should be going up faster. 

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I've read your sentence 3 times and still don't follow. Inflation has nothing to do with it. Every year we look at the total income reported by the top1% of filers and the income taxes paid by those filers. If they earn more, the AGI goes up as does the AGI share. Taxes are calculated on an annual basis.

I understand that. But more earnings among the top 1% mean a higher tax burden, even if policy remains the same.

Suppose our nation had 100 people. Richest guy (1%) makes $1m. He's going to pay something like $330k with no deductions/etc taken into account. If everybody else makes $20k the 1% is going to be responsible for probably more than 90% of tax revenue.

Suppose instead the richest makes $200k, and the bottom earners are at $50k. Going to look very different. But the share the 1% is paying of the overall tax burden is a fraction of the other example.

Both scenarios employ the same tax policy. And AGI didn't normalize it. It's not a shift in policy that changed the allocations of overall burden, it's how earnings were distributed.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

OK, I get your point. That tax brackets aren't keeping up with income growth, so the added income as a % share of total AGI is taxed at the highest marginal rate. I really don't know the answer if the tax brackets shift as fast as income does. But if they don't -- that means we are simply even more progressive than we thought because the income thresholds should be going up faster. 

This is absolutely true. But not because policy changes, because distribution of income has changed. That's my main point: these changes are independent of policy, not because of policy.

FWIW I'm not arguing that the tax analysis you shared are wrong. But they do lack some context and consideration for how income distribution has impacted tax revenue.

TLDR arguing that we've moved to the right on income tax rates is about as good an argument as saying "militarization of police." Two huge busts from team ishlib.

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

FWIW I'm not arguing that the tax analysis you shared are wrong. But they do lack some context and consideration for how income distribution has impacted tax revenue.

Let's leave it at this -- the argument that tax policy has shifted to the "right" over the last 20 years is batish insane. Pretty sure we can agree on that. And that the USA already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world. 

The lies trotted out by Democrats about the rich not "paying their fair share" are just so idiotic. 

The "how you determine the 1%" was meant as a nod to how statistics, especially when dealing with percentages, can be twisted to fit a narrative.

I defined the 1% in a specific way. But when I read 3rd party analysis, especially from any kind of think tank with an agenda, I tend to look very closely at anything one might consider assumed language or definition. 

One could subtly redefine what "the 1%" means for the purposes of making some point. 1% of what? Total tax revenue? AGI? Gross earnings?

I'm not saying you'd argue in bad faith, I never have seen you argue on anything but facts and reason. But I wouldn't put it past any think tank to play a little loose with the numbers. 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

The "how you determine the 1%" was meant as a nod to how statistics, especially when dealing with percentages, can be twisted to fit a narrative.

I defined the 1% in a specific way. But when I read 3rd party analysis, especially from any kind of think tank with an agenda, I tend to look very closely at anything one might consider assumed language or definition. 

One could subtly redefine what "the 1%" means for the purposes of making some point. 1% of what? Total tax revenue? AGI? Gross earnings?

I'm not saying you'd argue in bad faith, I never have seen you argue on anything but facts and reason. But I wouldn't put it past any think tank to play a little loose with the numbers. 

I'm using the raw IRS data for that reason. They peg the top 1% as the top 1% of income tax filers based on AGI.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Let's leave it at this -- the argument that tax policy has shifted to the "right" over the last 20 years is batish insane. Pretty sure we can agree on that. And that the USA already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world. 

The lies trotted out by Democrats about the rich not "paying their fair share" are just so idiotic. 

I don't really think the tax policy has changed a ton, certainly not on earned income. Tinkering at the margins mostly, but the effects there are more political than economic.

The tax policy has been progressive far longer than that. 

What gets trotted out are specific instances where "rich a-holes"* live off cash borrowed against their stock holdings at near zero rates. I don't really think it's much of an argument because I don't believe those numbers to be large enough to make a tremendous difference in our tax revenue all said and done, but there is a political price to pay when there are readily available examples of billionaires that pay zero in taxes launching themselves into space. 

Personally I share Elon's opinion that how he would choose to spend his money is better for us overall than how the US would. I'm merely sharing bits of a conversation and the political reality of being so transparent about it

 

* Again, not my argument.

6 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't really think the tax policy has changed a ton, certainly not on earned income. Tinkering at the margins mostly, but the effects there are more political than economic.

The tax policy has been progressive far longer than that. 

What gets trotted out are specific instances where "rich a-holes"* live off cash borrowed against their stock holdings at near zero rates. I don't really think it's much of an argument because I don't believe those numbers to be large enough to make a tremendous difference in our tax revenue all said and done, but there is a political price to pay when there are readily available examples of billionaires that pay zero in taxes launching themselves into space. 

Personally I share Elon's opinion that how he would choose to spend his money is better for us overall than how the US would. I'm merely sharing bits of a conversation and the political reality of being so transparent about it

 

* Again, not my argument.

As someone who does this -- this is not a new phenomenon. What's new is the stupid low interest rates that we have had since 2008. But that's because we must have near zero rates to finance the profligate government spending pushed by liberal politicians (on social programs) and "conservatives" (on things like defense) alike. 

But that has 0.0% to do with taxes. My income is still taxed at annoyingly high rates while most people don't pay squat. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

But that has 0.0% to do with taxes. My income is still taxed at annoyingly high rates while most people don't pay squat. 

Have you tried being more poor?

4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the conversation was fairly ambiguous on this, but my main point was about political power.

The discussion I had with you was about "how representative" the whackadoodles were on the left vs. the right with respect to the entire electorate (i.e. not the parties).  There wasn't any discussion about real policy level voting power within the party.  If you meant to say that the whackadoodles on the right have more real policy making power within the Republican Party right now then their whackadoodle leftist counterparts do within the Democratic Party then I agree.

 

 

@Dave Moss Quit with the mindless slobbering and if you insist on continuing to name me in your posts in a derogatory manner please at least have enough respect to actually tag me.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Have you tried being more poor?

I did growing up. Why do you think I dedicated my life to material wealth? When I was a kid and people asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up, my answer was simply "rich."

 

To be fair, my upbringing went from lower middle class to upper middle class as my dad got promoted. But Indian parents tend to be cheap as hell. I hated hearing that I couldn't have something because it wasn't on sale, or we didn't have a coupon (side note: my mom legit had a shoe box with coupons organized by product that she took to Acme every time). I never wanted to be in a position to give a damn about sales, coupons, etc.

Just now, vikas83 said:

I did growing up. Why do you think I dedicated my life to material wealth? When I was a kid and people asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up, my answer was simply "rich."

 

To be fair, my upbringing went from lower middle class to upper middle class as my dad got promoted. But Indian parents tend to be cheap as hell. I hated hearing that I couldn't have something because it wasn't on sale, or we didn't have a coupon (side note: my mom legit had a shoe box with coupons organized by product that she took to Acme every time). I never wanted to be in a position to give a damn about sales, coupons, etc.

 was a joke..

But I feel similarly.

My parents did well enough, but like in most middle class families they argued about expenses and bills, and always wished to be doing better.

My father still does all his own home maintenance. We installed a water heater in my house together, mainly as a nod to his blue collar upbringing and to show him I could do it, even though I typically choose to pay someone else to. (I still get ****ed at about paying someone to renovate the master bath, though he begrudgingly admitted the spackling was well done)

I never sought to be "wealthy", but I did seek to find a level where I worried little about money. 

I've been fortunate to achieve that mostly. I mean, I have a zero turn and a pool, what more could a CVON poster dream of?

But I do think I've reached a level where reaching for the next rung on the ladder will cost me too much in other areas of my life. My kids, wife, and to a lesser extent extended family also need me to be  present in their lives.

God knows there's enough poor people in my family already. If I don't coach up my nephews to reach for something better in life, who will?

13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 was a joke..

But I feel similarly.

My parents did well enough, but like in most middle class families they argued about expenses and bills, and always wished to be doing better.

My father still does all his own home maintenance. We installed a water heater in my house together, mainly as a nod to his blue collar upbringing and to show him I could do it, even though I typically choose to pay someone else to. (I still get ****ed at about paying someone to renovate the master bath, though he begrudgingly admitted the spackling was well done)

I never sought to be "wealthy", but I did seek to find a level where I worried little about money. 

I've been fortunate to achieve that mostly. I mean, I have a zero turn and a pool, what more could a CVON poster dream of?

But I do think I've reached a level where reaching for the next rung on the ladder will cost me too much in other areas of my life. My kids, wife, and to a lesser extent extended family also need me to be  present in their lives.

God knows there's enough poor people in my family already. If I don't coach up my nephews to reach for something better in life, who will?

No kids, and I avoid my family as much as possible. So it's just the wife for me. 

Making money is what makes me happy.

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Making money is what makes me happy.

philly sports teams that don't suck make me happy. 

 

i'm kind of sad these days. 

7 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

philly sports teams that don't suck make me happy. 

 

i'm kind of sad these days. 

The soccer team was pretty good and then COVID hit.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

The Bush tax cuts which the left cried about were amazingly progressive. They basically dropped the share for the bottom 50% to next to nothing. 

Without the SALT cap, the Trump tax cuts would have likely reduced the burden on the top 1%. But...you can't just ignore that. The fact that Trump did it out of spite (to punish people in states that voted for Clinton) instead of ideology is irrelevant to the actual outcome. 

And Trump isn't fiscally conservative. Trump has no actual political philosophy or principles beyond punishing those that oppose him. Or make fun of him.

Trouble with the Bush tax cuts is that the 2nd term of the Clinton administration had repeated budget surpluses.  That ended quickly when Bush came into office and mushroomed into the mess we see now 20 years later.

12 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

philly sports teams that don't suck make me happy. 

 

i'm kind of sad these days. 

Fracking Union.

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Trouble with the Bush tax cuts is that the 2nd term of the Clinton administration had repeated budget surpluses.  That ended quickly when Bush came into office and mushroomed into the mess we see now 20 years later.

We've gotten to a place where generally people demand more from government but want someone else to pay for it.

That's always been true to an extent. But the entitlement runs deeper than ever. 

The late 90s were also a bit of an exception .. taxes as a percentage of GDP were at their near peak before falling off. I can't speak to the specifics of that, but it's probably unsustainable.