This chart is misleading though. They are comparing "share of tax filers" at different income brackets instead of "share of tax paid" with the "share of tax cuts". For example, just take a look at the less than $45,000 group. Yes that group makes up 44.6% of the tax paying population, but their actual federal income tax rate is already very low (close to 0%) and even though they make up almost 1/2 the tax paying population their share of total income tax paid is less than 4%.
I won't pay attention to what trump says about taxes until he releases his returns. Otherwise, what comes out of trump's mouth is simply bull****.
How will we pay for Harvey recovery if we do not have tax cuts? Tax cut generate more revenue, it is a proven fact.
Unfortunately, twitter didn't exist back then, but still... the Trump from the past contradicts the Trump today... today's Trump should have listened to past Trump... President Trump Said He Wants Tax Reform Like in 1986. But He Once Called That Bill a ‘Catastrophe’ http://fortune.com/2017/08/30/donal...utm_medium=social&xid=time_socialflow_twitter
The disaster in Texas will cost somewhere beyond $100 billion, from the looks of it, so of course trump wants to cut taxes, with the 1% being far better served by those cuts than any other group. trump continues to lie, of course, claiming that the cuts will "hurt" him. Total BS. Cutting taxes now would be a towering act of stupidity. The catastrophe in Texas will have to be paid for, and cutting entitlements to do so would be madness.
You'd need to consider sales tax and capital gains to get a true picture. I'm excluding property tax because that's normally passed along the renters so there's no real way to determine tax burden by income group from it.
Ass backwards fiscal policy - cut taxes in a boon and cut spending in a recession. Should be the other way around. Right now they should be raising taxes and cutting spending to try to get control of the budget deficit while times are good.
The problem is, as I'm sure we'd all agree, is that both of those are harmful to the economy. Politicians don't want to risk that on their watch. They only care about the deficit when the other side is growing it. They don't care about the long-term health of this country.
Capital gains taxes are somewhat progressive. The 2 lowest tax bracket pay 0% long term capital gain tax. Most of the other tax brackets pay 15% long term capital gain tax while the highest bracket pay 20%.
The basic point is that sales tax will raise the bars on the left side of the graph and lower the bars on the right side. The far right also is capped out on Social Security which would raise the left side relative to the right.
Raising taxes on the top 1% won't negatively impact the economy. Cutting spending is a net drag but the economy can sustain it and it will help keep interest rates lower.
Yes if you consider the total tax paid, sales tax will raise the bars on the left side of the graph but it's not going to lower the bars on the right, it'll just raise less. I personally don't consider social security & medicare as taxes, I'd rather think of them as government mandated retirement plans. How much you pay every year & how many years you've paid all directly impact how much you'll get back after retirement.
I dunno, this kinda seems like a recipe for disaster to me. 1st of all, under this system why would any one invest in new companies through IPOs? 2nd, under this kind of system companies large & small all becomes extremely fragile & bloated and poorly equipped to handle any kind of shock (downturn in their specific industry, recession & depression in the economy in general etc)
Yet the economy under President Eisenhower wasn't a disaster, people did invest in new companies etc. They probably did that because there were ways to invest and still pay much less than 90% by hiring, investing in R&D, building, buying equipment and all of the things mentioned. That being said, I know that the top income tax rate was 90%. I believe the top corporate tax rate was just over 50%
True the marginal tax rate for the top bracket at that time was around 90%, but I think that's very misleading as well. Due to different & significantly larger deductions & loopholes available the rich didn't pay anywhere near that rate. The current effective tax rate for the rich and the Eisenhower era effective tax rate for the rich are are very similar. One example of the loophole from that era, today you can deduct your mortgage interest but in Eisenshower's time you can deduct 1/27 of your entire real estate holding value every year for 27 years. Just this one loop hole pretty much ensures that almost none of the rich paid anywhere near the highest marginal tax rate.
