Eisenhower's 92% tax rate

myp · Dec 31, 2012

misterveritis said:
There was no data there prior to 1980. Eisenhower was president in the early 1950s.

Did you not see the "vs." in my post? I compared the two.

misterveritis said:
You have not made the case. The Tax Foundation website policy statements write more like me and believe what I believe far more than they reflect your beliefs.

This isn't about belief. That is the whole point. Even someone at the Tax Foundation will tell you that Eisenhower's rates were higher. That is fact if you are basing it on this AGI data- not belief. I have nothing for or against the Tax Foundation, I don't know why you are even bringing up their advocacy positions. You seem to have an issue distinguishing between fact-based matters and opinions. Now if you have an issue with the methodology of any of these studies or the logic behind my conclusion, then pleas enlighten me on where I am wrong. And by that I don't mean attack me with myths from your head (like I am a communist), but show me where my methodology was wrong.

misterveritis said:
Until one has a good understanding of the impact of tax shelters on adjusted gross income it will be difficult to establish what the effective tax rates were. When one has data labeled effective tax rates on amended adjusted gross income one can only wonder what value they provide. Those words could mean just about anything and I suspect they do. It reminds me a bit of Alice in Wonderland.

What about their methodology do you not like? Is there any data out there in the world that helps make your case? Or are you the only angel is a world of commies? Show me the data for your argument.

And please note that through all this I have not made any claims about what tax structure I prefer other than that I prefer a progressive structure (as have most of the Republican presidents in recent decades). All I am saying here is that the Eisenhower vs. Obama/Bush effective rates are a matter of fact and the data strongly if not conclusively suggests Eisenhower's rates were higher.

myp · Dec 31, 2012

misterveritis said:
Let's just do a comparison. Go ahead. You show me the size of your...economic understanding. And them I will show you mine.

Do you believe that Radical Karl was a conspiracist?

He so desperately wanted his communist manifesto and works like Capital to appear scientific. It was the rage back then. Until you recognize that your favored positions are prettied up communist dogma how can you have a discussion?

Let's start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Yea, more political b.s. Ironic that you shared the boom and bust video- I shared that here when it first came out. Too bad Hayek used logic and data, unlike you

(as did Keynes, although I suspect you don't care for him) He would not have denied the obvious difference in tax rates from now and then.

The most ironic thing here is that Hayek has been quite influential on my thought. As has Milton Friedman- I wonder what you think about him, but he was quite popular, especially in GOP circles (although he is often misrepresented today)- he even advocated a flat, negative income tax which would effectively be progressive in nature just as flat taxes are regressive in nature.

And you said my favored positions are prettied up communism. What are my favored positions? How do you know them if I haven't even said anything about them here other than I favor progressive taxation? So, go ahead, tell me. Or did you just fabricate that like most of what else you say about others being liberals or whatnot?

clax · Dec 31, 2012

tecoyah said:
Yes, it is....thus the term "Effective"....vs. "Marginal" rate.

the effective rate? If that isn't really the actual rate than it is meaningless.

tecoyah · Jan 1, 2013

clax said:
the effective rate? If that isn't really the actual rate than it is meaningless.

The issue is complex...and both rates Must be considered to form a valid opinion.

This is how we understand the loophole problem.

misterveritis · Jan 1, 2013

myp said:
Did you not see the "vs." in my post? I compared the two.

What did you compare?

How would you compare today's adjusted gross income to the AGI from the 1950s? To do that one would have to know a great deal more than the simple number. The number does not tell us how we arrived there. Given that there are huge differences between the tax codes of 1950s and 2012 the numbers are without meaning.

myp · Jan 1, 2013

misterveritis said:
What did you compare?

How would you compare today's adjusted gross income to the AGI from the 1950s? To do that one would have to know a great deal more than the simple number. The number does not tell us how we arrived there. Given that there are huge differences between the tax codes of 1950s and 2012 the numbers are without meaning.

A point I already noted in my conclusion; reasoning why I think it is still safe to arrive at said conclusion...

misterveritis · Jan 1, 2013

myp said:
Yea, more political b.s. Ironic that you shared the boom and bust video- I shared that here when it first came out. Too bad Hayek used logic and data, unlike you (as did Keynes, although I suspect you don't care for him) He would not have denied the obvious difference in tax rates from now and then.

If only Heyek had had some influence on you...

The most ironic thing here is that Hayek has been quite influential on my thought.

If so the influence was very subtle. Have you read any of his books or did you just watch the videos?

As has Milton Friedman- I wonder what you think about him, but he was quite popular, especially in GOP circles (although he is often misrepresented today)- he even advocated a flat, negative income tax which would effectively be progressive in nature just as flat taxes are regressive in nature.

I enjoyed his essay, "Why government is the problem." I don't doubt that economists and political philosophers who lived the massive growth of government in the 1930 combined with the apparent superiority and inevitability of Socialism hasn't said one or two things they regret.

And you said my favored positions are prettied up communism. What are my favored positions? How do you know them if I haven't even said anything about them here other than I favor progressive taxation? So, go ahead, tell me. Or did you just fabricate that like most of what else you say about others being liberals or whatnot?

Let's stick with the progressive taxation. You appear to support Obama or at least do not object to him. Those two things are sufficient.

misterveritis · Jan 1, 2013

myp said:
A point I already noted in my conclusion; reasoning why I think it is still safe to arrive at said conclusion...

Gobbledygook.

If the opportunities to shelter one's money through the tax code took an original annual income of one million dollars and reduced it to an adjusted growth income of 100K taxed in a stepwise fashion with the top marginal rated of 91% would you think that was the same as a million dollars reduced to an AGI of $800K given the dramatic reduction in shelters?

What you want to do is plunder. Nothing I can say will sway you from it.

myp · Jan 1, 2013

misterveritis said:
If so the influence was very subtle. Have you read any of his books or did you just watch the videos?

Read to Serfdom, several essays, and many pieces that have referenced his work. You?

misterveritis said:
I enjoyed his essay, "Why government is the problem." I don't doubt that economists and political philosophers who lived the massive growth of government in the 1930 combined with the apparent superiority and inevitability of Socialism hasn't said one or two things they regret.

The negative income tax was something he advocated time and time again. Try again. I also suspect you disagree with his views on monetary policy- namely inflation targeting.

misterveritis said:
Let's stick with the progressive taxation. You appear to support Obama or at least do not object to him. Those two things are sufficient.

Just because I support progressive taxation does not mean I support Obama. I hope you realize that a sizable portion of Congressman including Republicans over the last few decades have supported progressive taxation and I believe every President has- including Ronald Reagan. So to you are we all commies now? You aren't the grandson of Joseph McCarthy, are you?

myp · Jan 1, 2013

misterveritis said:
Gobbledygook.

If the opportunities to shelter one's money through the tax code took an original annual income of one million dollars and reduced it to an adjusted growth income of 100K taxed in a stepwise fashion with the top marginal rated of 91% would you think that was the same as a million dollars reduced to an AGI of $800K given the dramatic reduction in shelters?

What you want to do is plunder. Nothing I can say will sway you from it.

Show me the actual numbers or just say you don't have them and are making this up out of your gut. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Adjusted-Gross-Income.cfm shows the AGI changes- a lot which favor the rich now relative to then. I don't know how you are arguing they paid less then when the highest income rate was several fold higher, the capital gains was higher, etc.

Also, I am not sure why you are so keen on proving that the Bush tax rates were higher than the Eisenhower ones- what's the point as far as your argument goes?

misterveritis · Jan 1, 2013

myp said:
Read to Serfdom, several essays, and many pieces that have referenced his work. You?
Serfdom, certainly. Also The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, and The Constitution of Liberty.

I also delved deeply into Radical Karl's writings. The Communist Manifesto, Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program were the first three. Many of Marx's writings grate on my sensibilities as I read them so after those three I have scaled way back.

I have listened to Friedman speak. I was exposed to his thinking during my undergraduate yeas back in the '70s. I no longer own any of his works. I would add Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. I was also exposed to Popper.

The negative income tax was something he advocated time and time again. Try again.

Click to expand...

I will take your word for it. I have listened to many of his speeches. I have never heard his say it. But if true that is evidence that even a brilliant person has his blind spots. I also suspect you disagree with his views on monetary policy- namely inflation targeting.

Just because I support progressive taxation does not mean I support Obama. I hope you realize that a sizable portion of Congressman including Republicans over the last few decades have supported progressive taxation and I believe every President has- including Ronald Reagan. So to you are we all commies now? You aren't the grandson of Joseph McCarthy, are you?

Click to expand...

It was anathema to the Founders and to me. Acceptance of the tax structure does not mean that they were for it. Reagan greatly reduced the progressiveness of the tax rates.

We are heading toward a stultifying Marxist European-style socialism with its slow rates of growth and systemic high unemployment. In a sense yes, we are all commies now. Except me.

misterveritis · Jan 1, 2013

myp said:
Show me the actual numbers or just say you don't have them and are making this up out of your gut. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/encyclopedia/Adjusted-Gross-Income.cfm shows the AGI changes- a lot which favor the rich now relative to then. I don't know how you are arguing they paid less then when the highest income rate was several fold higher, the capital gains was higher, etc.

Also, I am not sure why you are so keen on proving that the Bush tax rates were higher than the Eisenhower ones- what's the point as far as your argument goes?

I don't know if anyone has done the very hard work of digging into the tax code from the 1950s and determining using actual data what the effective tax rates were. I do know that Reagan agreed to strip away many of the tax shelters in return for fewer steps (progressivity) and shallower rates.

That is why thee anecdotal evidence is informative.

myp · Jan 1, 2013

misterveritis said:
I will take your word for it. I have listened to many of his speeches. I have never heard his say it. But if true that is evidence that even a brilliant person has his blind spots.

Hmm... interesting how when you disagree with him on something it is a "blind spot" on his part, but when you disagree with me, I am all of a sudden a Marxist. Also interesting/unfortunate that you are so sure of your positions that everyone else is automatically wrong for disagreeing with you. By the way, there are a few videos on Youtube where he talks about the negative income tax if you are interested.

misterveritis said:
It was anathema to the Founders and to me. Acceptance of the tax structure does not mean that they were for it. Reagan greatly reduced the progressiveness of the tax rates.

We are heading toward a stultifying Marxist European-style socialism with its slow rates of growth and systemic high unemployment. In a sense yes, we are all commies now. Except me.

But Reagan also straight up said he supports progressive taxation. So again, there is nothing wrong with progressive taxation and it is certainly not a sign of Marxism. That aside, I would prefer an equal tax in value than a regressive tax- I don't understand how you can support taxing the poor more by support a nominal flat tax.

As for growth and unemployment, again once more you ignore the core- conveniently. But even then, no one is saying let's copy Europe

misterveritis · Jan 2, 2013

myp said:
Hmm... interesting how when you disagree with him on something it is a "blind spot" on his part, but when you disagree with me, I am all of a sudden a Marxist. Also interesting/unfortunate that you are so sure of your positions that everyone else is automatically wrong for disagreeing with you. By the way, there are a few videos on Youtube where he talks about the negative income tax if you are interested.

LOL. For him I have no context. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I cannot tell if you are a Marxist "all of a sudden". I can tell that some of your written views do not vary from what any Marxist would say.

I am sure of my positions. But that is fine as I am right.

I will look them up and add him to my subscriptions. I listened to over two hours of his speeches. The negative income tax never came up. But men speak for years and occasionally they say foolish things.

myp · Jan 2, 2013

misterveritis said:
LOL. For him I have no context. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I cannot tell if you are a Marxist "all of a sudden". I can tell that some of your written views do not vary from what any Marxist would say.

I am sure of my positions. But that is fine as I am right.

I will look them up and add him to my subscriptions. I listened to over two hours of his speeches. The negative income tax never came up. But men speak for years and occasionally they say foolish things.

Funny (sad?) how you seem to think you have it all figured out, including what OTHERS believe in. Progressive taxation is hardly synonymous with Marxism. And you not knowing that Friedman vouched for a negative income tax shows your lack of knowledge about his policy positions to begin with considering it was something he brought up and wrote about many, many times:

[YOUTUBE]xtpgkX588nM[/YOUTUBE]

misterveritis · Jan 2, 2013

What did Reagan say in context?

myp said:
But Reagan also straight up said he supports progressive taxation. So again, there is nothing wrong with progressive taxation and it is certainly not a sign of Marxism. That aside, I would prefer an equal tax in value than a regressive tax- I don't understand how you can support taxing the poor more by support a nominal flat tax.

I dispute that. Here is what he said on one occasion,"But the socialists' ultimate tool was the progressive tax. 'A basic point to remember,' Reagan said, 'is that none of these extensions of socialism can be effected without money.'"

"Once we were told the income tax would never be greater than 2 percent, and that only from the rich," said Reagan. "In our lifetime, this law has grown from 31 to more than 440,000 words. We have received this progressive tax direct from Karl Marx, who designed it as the prime essential of a socialist state."

"There can be no moral justification of the progressive tax," he said.

Toward the end of his speech, Reagan told a story about testifying on tax reform in the House Ways and Means Committee. He discovered the committee was not interested in his ideas or those of many others who testified."

http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/ronald-reagan-progressive-taxation-came-direct-karl-marx

As for growth and unemployment, again once more you ignore the core- conveniently. But even then, no one is saying let's copy Europe

Why do you ignore what is actually happening? WE are copying Europe. We spend way more money than we have. We print what we are no longer able to borrow. When the collapse comes it will come suddenly.

myp · Jan 2, 2013

misterveritis said:
I dispute that. Here is what he said on one occasion,"But the socialists' ultimate tool was the progressive tax. 'A basic point to remember,' Reagan said, 'is that none of these extensions of socialism can be effected without money.'"

"Once we were told the income tax would never be greater than 2 percent, and that only from the rich," said Reagan. "In our lifetime, this law has grown from 31 to more than 440,000 words. We have received this progressive tax direct from Karl Marx, who designed it as the prime essential of a socialist state."

"There can be no moral justification of the progressive tax," he said.

Toward the end of his speech, Reagan told a story about testifying on tax reform in the House Ways and Means Committee. He discovered the committee was not interested in his ideas or those of many others who testified."

http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/ronald-reagan-progressive-taxation-came-direct-karl-marx

At the same time, he has been quoted as supporting progressive taxation and showed it in his policy proposals too. But, that's a politician for you

misterveritis said:
Why do you ignore what is actually happening? WE are copying Europe. We spend way more money than we have. We print what we are no longer able to borrow. When the collapse comes it will come suddenly.

We aren't really copying Europe. For one, what is copying? There are literally hundreds of thousands of variables- we are in no way copying it all. You point to one variable that is similar or going the same way and use it as justification for "copying", but that is unscientific considering the other hundreds of thousands of variables are changing too, some converging in terms of policy, and others diverging (and then there are the extraneous variables in any given set).

And, again, for the third time, the Euro core is doing great. Better than us actually.

Edit: One more question for you. Again back to Friedman, actually, since you seemed to have generally supported him. Everyone knows his primary work was in monetarism- namely following an inflation target. You say we "print" when we can't borrow, but the Fed is clearly just trying to meet an inflation target as Friedman would have wanted.

misterveritis · Jan 2, 2013

myp said:
Funny (sad?) how you seem to think you have it all figured out, including what OTHERS believe in. Progressive taxation is hardly synonymous with Marxism.

Socialism cannot be created without it. So in a very real sense it is.

And you not knowing that Friedman vouched for a negative income tax shows your lack of knowledge about his policy positions to begin with considering it was something he brought up and wrote about many, many times:

Fortunately I do not have to know about everything. Given that you are an expert what percentage of his time did he spend discussing the negative income tax? What context was he speaking in? Was this an alternative to some other massive federal program or group of programs? You provide no context. Perhaps you are not aware that context makes a difference.

myp · Jan 2, 2013

misterveritis said:
Socialism cannot be created without it. So in a very real sense it is.

Socialism also can't be created without a government. So does that mean government is a socialist philosophy? Are you an anarchist? Your logic makes no sense.

misterveritis said:
Fortunately I do not have to know about everything. Given that you are an expert what percentage of his time did he spend discussing the negative income tax? What context was he speaking in? Was this an alternative to some other massive federal program or group of programs? You provide no context. Perhaps you are not aware that context makes a difference.

It is not my job to educate you, you can Google it

He was strongly for such a tax- anyone who knows his basic philosophy knows it.

misterveritis · Jan 2, 2013

We are becoming just another European-style Marxist socialist state

myp said:
We aren't really copying Europe. For one, what is copying? There are literally hundreds of thousands of variables- we are in no way copying it all. You point to one variable that is similar or going the same way and use it as justification for "copying", but that is unscientific considering the other hundreds of thousands of variables are changing too, some converging in terms of policy, and others diverging (and then there are the extraneous variables in any given set).

We spend more than we take in. We are increasing the tax burdens on the most effective people, the engines of growth. Nearly every country in Europe has done the same. We are on the path from a soft, regulatory state tyranny to a hard tyranny where people will be put into prisons and some will be murdered. I do not know how long it will take but it is clear that Obama believes he can murder Americans with drone strikes if he can describe them as terrorists first.

And, again, for the third time, the Euro core is doing great. Better than us actually.

I dispute that Europe is doing great. I present, for example, Ireland, Greece, France, Spain, Portugal...

Eisenhower's 92% tax rate

Similar threads