Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Al B. Sure!]

It is funny when I talk to my father about the 70s when the upper level tax rates were really high. He laughed and said no investment seemed silly since if it tanked it didn't really cost you much so you could do all sorts of high risk ones. And most people in his group did. All that investing helped lower unemployment which eventually led to surpluses.

I'm lost as to what this means. Maybe I'm just not understanding sarcasm over the internet.

If the personal income taxes were so high, that would have mitigated their personal investment (if that's what you're referring to as investment) return obviously since they would have had less after taxes to invest. If, on the other hand, you're referring to what Oerdin said, and it's business owners taking less out for their personal income (or I guess shareholders agreeing to lower or no dividends) and instead re-investing retained earnings, that re-investing only has value to the shareholders/owners because it is hoped it will make money (expected present value calculations here). All it is is postponing the receipt of (hopefully greater) income which will be taxed. I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

[KrazyHorse]

The fact that we did not follow you into socialist utopia might lend to you giving pause to think that maybe you aren't a good picker of winners.

Equating the understanding that a comparison of tax burdens which uses different measures for its numerator and denominator is meaningless and a value judgment as to the relative virtues of equality versus measured efficiency is idiotic. Thanks for playing, though.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm lost as to what this means. Maybe I'm just not understanding sarcasm over the internet.

If the personal income taxes were so high, that would have mitigated their personal investment (if that's what you're referring to as investment) return obviously since they would have had less after taxes to invest. If, on the other hand, you're referring to what Oerdin said, and it's business owners taking less out for their personal income (or I guess shareholders agreeing to lower or no dividends) and instead re-investing retained earnings, that re-investing only has value to the shareholders/owners because it is hoped it will make money (expected present value calculations here). All it is is postponing the receipt of (hopefully greater) income which will be taxed. I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

Ah, so you did learn some economics in school...

[Kuciwalker]

It depends on what you are interested in measuring.

No it doesn't. There's nothing coherent being measured by earning income + capital income/capital gains.

And I do use income as usually defined, because that is how it is usually defined. And I talk about income, because that is what people generally want to talk about and compare.

Why do you knowingly say things are meaningless just because other people do?

[Kuciwalker]

I could be wrong but you'd have to have expectations for lower tax rates in the future for what you and Oerdin said to make sense.

yep

[Jon Miller]

No it doesn't. There's nothing coherent being measured by earning income + capital income/capital gains.

Why do you knowingly say things are meaningless just because other people do?

Huh? It isn't meaningless. The fact that people choose to discuss it means that it isn't meaningless. And a lot of people consider it to be the interesting quality to discuss.

The social aspect of economics and economic policy are very important.

To make it easier for you, consider the computing industry. GHz and RAM can be pretty meaningless when measuring computer performance. Especially in very different technologies (AMD versus Intel for a while). Yet, because people chose to talk about these things, they were meaningful. Not in a comparison of computer performances, but in social behavior and purchasing decisions.

Additionally, it is rational to measure the change of wealth. Income as traditionally defined does this (to an extant, it isn't great at it, but is definitely highly correlated with a better measure).

Anyways, as I stated you are wrong because people choose to compare themselves using income. Since they do, it is a social measurement. And it is relevant.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Basically, this thread is primarily about peoples perceptions, people's perceptions of people's perceptions.

JM

[giblets]

Some people perceive the current tax system as fair. Some people believe more taxes on the rich/less on the poor would make it fair. Some think a flat tax would be fair. Some think certain forms of taxation, like the capital gains tax or the inheritance tax, should be eliminated. Others support inheritance taxes and some think that capital gains tax rates should be compared to earned income tax rates for some inexplicable reason. Some say a simpler tax code would be more fair. That sums up my perceptions of the perceptions. Wasn't that interesting?

[Jon Miller]

No because it was just a summary and not your perceptions.

You could have just as well said 'people think things'.

Can you give any insight? Maybe say what your own perceptions are?

JM

[giblets]

I don't like the current marginal rates for earned income. The bottom one should be 0%, so people can more easily earn a living wage. The top ones should be higher, something like 70% for the top bracket and 50% for the next one.

[KrazyHorse]

Given that the marginal tax rate for bottom earners is negative already, I don't understand your statement.

[giblets]

I thought 10% was the lowest bracket? Are you saying it's negative, if you include money they get from the government?

[KrazyHorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

[KrazyHorse]

Also, the "bottom bracket" even without EITC is 0....

[giblets]

Okay, I guess the focus can stay on raising taxes for top earners