Comments 1 - 40 of 117 Next » Last » Search these comments
Tax fact: Rep/Cons didn't raise taxes to fund 2 wars. They can have wars without paying for them. What's the latest cost estimate,$4-6 trillion?
Does Thom Hartmann twist facts for his own benefit? Was he the one that said Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction?
’ve seen some pretty crazy things from the Facebook page “U.S. Uncut,” but recently I saw their reprint of some “facts” from Thom Hartmann that had more than 60,000 shares. This particular billboard was so absurd that I felt compelled to share it and set the record straight. Here’s the image:
Yes, people on both sides of economics say absurd things. Is this a surprise to you somehow? Your "setting the record straight" parroting of mises is frequently just as crazy.
Have you verified TH had anything at all to do with this gif?
I've had the interweb lie to my face before!!
This is an oversimplification.
The fact remains that since the enaction of the Federal Income tax, GDP growth has averaged over 2% higher per year in years where the top tax rate was above 50% compared to when the top tax rate was below 50%.
Correlation does not equal causation, but that is a fact.
Your "setting the record straight" parroting of mises is frequently just as crazy.
Citation please.
Have you verified TH had anything at all to do with this gif?
I've had the interweb lie to my face before!!
Don't care, somebody here put it up a while back.
The fact remains that since the enaction of the Federal Income tax, GDP growth has averaged over 2% higher per year in years where the top tax rate was above 50% compared to when the top tax rate was below 50%.
Talk about an oversimplification...
You assume everyone paid all of their taxes when the highest marginal rate was 90%, give me a break.
The fact is the economy grew in spite of not because of.
The fact is the economy grew in spite of not because of.
I said correlatio is not causation. I simply post the fact so one CANNOT make the argument that lowering taxes increases economic growth becasue this has not been observed.
I said correlatio is not causation. I simply post the fact so one CANNOT make the argument that lowering taxes increases economic growth becasue this has not been observed.
Ok, the problem is that there is no one factor occurring with an economy, as with a controlled scientific experiment.
In general you could say however that N Korea and S Korea or East Germany and West Germany or mainland China v Hong Kong are pretty good examples for the most part.
And spare me the Somalia example that is apples to oranges.
BTW as a point of reference to consider, 100yr ago the total taxation of the avg individual was 12% today it is 50%
That means you are a slave for half of financial life.
BTW as a point of reference to consider, 100yr ago the total taxation of the avg individual was 12% today it is 50%
That means you are a slave for half of financial life.
source? Please show me the "average" individual that is getting taxed 50%.
Just do the math, fed & state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. It is 50 percent.
Just do the math, fed & state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. It is 50 percent.
Really? Why don't you show me.
Just do the math, fed & state income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. It is 50 percent.
Your "setting the record straight" parroting of mises is frequently just as crazy.
Citation please.
Let's start with the problem that you don't know the difference between tax rate and taxation.
The person making average income does indeed face a marginal tax rate close to 50%, if not more:
The marginal federal rate in that bracket is 25%
Payroll tax is 15+% (self-employed pay both sides; employees really pay both sides too as the employer's 7.5+% is also part of the cost of hiring decision)
State income tax typically 5-8%; states not having income tax usually get the equivalent money from sales tax or extra heavy property tax.
Property tax usually amounting to 2% of 3x to 5x income, so 6-10% of income.
Obamacare probably amounts to another 2-5% of the income of someone making $40-50k a year, the average income point. It is a tax, as the Chief Justice said. The average wage earner does not have $5k or so saved to pay the deductible in those plans, so they will pay for medical expense out of pocket for small ailments, and they are screwed anyway for major illness.
The marginal federal rate in that bracket is 25%
But indigeneous didn't say "marginal" did he?
The marginal federal rate in that bracket is 25%
But, let's not be disingenuous. What does the average person pay in Federal taxes? What percentage of income?
Payroll tax is 15+% (self-employed pay both sides; employees really pay both sides too as the employer's 7.5+% is also part of the cost of hiring decision)
I won't even comment on the idiocy of this one.
State income tax typically 5-8%; states not having income tax usually get the equivalent money from sales tax or extra heavy property tax.
Again--what percentage does the "average" person ACTUALLY pay??
Property tax usually amounting to 2% of 3x to 5x income, so 6-10% of income.
What percentage of the "average" people rent? I would think we should consider them...
Obamacare probably amounts to another 2-5% of the income of someone making $40-50k a year, the average income point. It is a tax, as the Chief Justice said. The average wage earner does not have $5k or so saved to pay the deductible in those plans, so they will pay for medical expense out of pocket for small ailments, and they are screwed anyway for major illness.
Again--we're talking about taxes paid.
@pupu70:
Economic decisions are made based on incremental/marginal benefits/costs.
For example, if someone pays you $0.25 for each post you make, you would spend all your day pecking away at the keyboard spouting nonsense regardless whether you believe them, simply because you are not able to earn more money with your time otherwise.
Economic decisions are made based on incremental/marginal benefits/costs.
For example, if someone pays you $0.25 for each post you make, you would spend all your day pecking away at the keyboard spouting nonsense regardless whether you believe them, simply because you are not able to earn more money with your time otherwise.
btw--the pupu thing is hilarious. Well done.
We're not talking about how people make decisions. Another poster said the average person pays 50% of his income in taxes. I simply asked him to detail it.
I know you love to distract and change the subject, but let's try to stay on track.
They are considered Einstein, property taxes are included in rents... Duh...
Really--so you consider your rent as a tax? Please tell me more. Which part of the government collects it?
Which you are totally clueless about and unable to figure out on your own...
Nope--I've got it figured out. I just like to see you and your friends twist in the wind as you try to dig yourselves out of this one.
@Tatu
This is where your lack of real life experience making financial decisions come in. Landlords pass property tax onto tenants. Landlords don't even have to compete against other landlords for that portion of the rent raise when the town/city raises property tax.
Obamacare mandate is a form of taxation, as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS correctly decided. When looking at the specific case of the average $40-50k annual income person, he/she does not have the $5k or so saved up for the deductible, so there is little chance he/she can pay up the deductible before the benefits kick in. If not for the legal mandate, he/she would not be buying the insurance at all. It's just a form of taxation.
What part of the monthly rent payment does the landlord send to the city for his real estate tax payment?
Who do you think is paying the property tax bill? The property tax fairy?
I don't know, but it's not relevant to the discussion unless the landlord is the "average" person to which the poster if referring.
Who do you think is paying the property tax bill? The property tax fairy?
The landlord--not the renter. And the renter is who was being discussed.
This is where your lack of real life experience making financial decisions come in. Landlords pass property tax onto tenants. Landlords don't even have to compete against other landlords for that portion of the rent raise when the town/city raises property tax.
lol--actually I understand that quite well. It doesn't change the fact that "rent" is not a tax. It is not paid to the government. It is paid to a landlord. That is a fact.
Obamacare mandate is a form of taxation, as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS correctly decided. When looking at the specific case of the average $40-50k annual income person, he/she does not have the $5k or so saved up for the deductible, so there is little chance he/she can pay up the deductible before the benefits kick in. If not for the legal mandate, he/she would not be buying the insurance at all. It's just a form of taxation.
And I merely reminded you that I wanted to know what taxes were paid. I don't care about deductibles or legal mandates. Just detail the $$ paid in taxes. If you want to consider health care as a tax, by all means, include the actual $$ spent by the average person on such a tax.
Landlords pass property tax onto tenants. Landlords don't even have to compete against other landlords for that portion of the rent raise when the town/city raises property tax.
lol--actually I understand that quite well. It doesn't change the fact that "rent" is not a tax. It is not paid to the government. It is paid to a landlord. That is a fact.
In the case of property tax and renters, the landlord is effectively the withholding agent, just like the employer. It's silly to think the renters don't pay property tax, just like it is silly to think the employee doesn't pay the 7.5+% payroll tax that is nominally paid by the employer; the tax is taken into account when the employment contracts and the rental contracts are signed.
And I merely reminded you that I wanted to know what taxes were paid. I don't care about deductibles or legal mandates. Just detail the $$ paid in taxes. If you want to consider health care as a tax, by all means, include the actual $$ spent by the average person on such a tax.
I already did that in my original post: for someone making $40-50k average wage, the mandatory insurance comes to 2-5% of his/her income, an insurance that the person would not buy if not for the mandate, as the insurance effectively offers no benefit to the insured as the person is not likely to have sufficient money saved up for the deductibles.
If the landlord is gonna be in business, they must cover all expenses plus turn a profit, so property tax has to be imbedded in the rent unless the lord will be content and able to operate at a loss which is highly unlikely. Even in situation where the owner has paid off the death pledge and can afford to set the rent low they still have to be able to cover property tax, maintenance, HOA, insurance. So the overwhelming odds are that property tax is included in the rent and the renter does not even get a tax break which is one of the reasons why renting vs owning does not pay off in the long run in most situations.
In the case of property tax and renters, the landlord is effectively the withholding agent, just like the employer. It's silly to think the renters don't pay property tax, just like it is silly to think the employee doesn't pay the 7.5+% payroll tax that is nominally paid by the employer; the tax is taken into account when the employment contracts and the rental contracts are signed.
Seriously---you can't this much of an idiot.. We're not talking about effectively. We're talking about literally. You either paid tax to the government, or you didn't.
If you write a check or get money withheld in your name that goes to the government, you are paying tax.
If you write a check to someone who then has to pay tax on those earnings-you are NOT paying tax.
It's very simple.
You could just as easily say that when you buy groceries you are paying tax as the cost of those groceries is higher because of the payroll taxes that Safeway has to pay their employees. Reality says
I already did that in my original post: for someone making $40-50k average wage, the mandatory insurance comes to 2-5% of his/her income, an insurance that the person would not buy if not for the mandate, as the insurance effectively offers no benefit to the insured as the person is not likely to have sufficient money saved up for the deductibles.
No, you didn't. And you're wrong, as usual.. The $40-$50K earner may well have insurance through his employer. In which case he's not paying any tax
Your lack of knowledge about real world financial issues is really scary!!
Actually, you're just too dense to follow the thread, as usual.
If the landlord is gonna be in business, they must cover all expenses plus turn a profit, so property tax has to be imbedded in the rent unless the lord will be content and able to operate at a loss which is highly unlikely.
Nobody is arguing that, although I think an argument can be made that in the short run, at least, it's not true.. Rents are set by supply and demand and are not really dependent on the owner's cost. You know this because the rent will be pretty much the same whether the owner has a mortgage or owns it outright.
Bobby where is that citation?
Tat
The speaker was referring to an average of western countries.
Which has gone from 12% of GDP to today being 50% of GDP.
This is because, in addition to what has already been mentioned, corporations are also taxed and those taxes are passed on to the customer.
Also the amount of regulation in the US has gone up 200% since it's inception.
Also the rate of growth has gone from 6% in the 60s to 1% in 00s, IMO this has a lot to do with the dearth of growth.
You and your fellow mutts look at this from an employee mentality which by definition gives you a mutt/myopic view of things.
My ilk view this from an employer mentality, which is a painfully 20/20 perspective.
Here is a perspective that you may be able to wrap your wits around.
If 100 people go out to dinner and they all decide that they will split the bill equally. The incentive would be to order without regard to the cost i.e. expensive entree, dessert, alcohol, as your bill is going to be the same as someone who ordered water, chicken, and no dessert.
Seriously---you can't this much of an idiot.. We're not talking about effectively. We're talking about literally. You either paid tax to the government, or you didn't.
If you write a check or get money withheld in your name that goes to the government, you are paying tax.
If you write a check to someone who then has to pay tax on those earnings-you are NOT paying tax.
It's very simple.
So according to your logic, you never pay sales tax? As the payment is made to the merchant (who then send it to the state). By your logic, you don't pay gasoline tax either, as the price advertised on the display cards "include all taxes and fees." You see how silly your logic is. The property tax is just like gasoline tax: levied on the asset, but ultimately born by the customer.
You could just as easily say that when you buy groceries you are paying tax as the cost of those groceries is higher because of the payroll taxes that Safeway has to pay their employees.
In this analysis, the payroll tax is already attributed to the cost of hiring an employee; i.e. the money that the employee is not getting. Yes, the customer does pay for the cost of hiring an employee (the employee's income plus payroll tax) but that's a different issue.
No, you didn't. And you're wrong, as usual.. The $40-$50K earner may well have insurance through his employer. In which case he's not paying any tax
LOL. The employer must have an Insurance Fairy as investor. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy? Where do you think the employer gets the money to pay for insurance? It's just another form of employment compensation. The whole idea of Obamacare is to get the burden of paying insurance off the backs of employers, and in case you did not notice, most $40-50k jobs don't carry insurance, and more and more companies are dropping insurance for employees. This national mandate under Obamacare will finally justify all employers dropping medical insurance for employees.
The more you post in business, insurance and financial threads, the more you show us just how clueless you are...
lol--you keep saying that, but I've yet to see you ever point to an example...
So according to your logic, you never pay sales tax?
Nope--my example said nothing about paying or not paying sales tax. But of course you pay sales tax.
The property tax is just like gasoline tax: levied on the asset, but ultimately born by the customer.
No, actually, it's not. The property tax is not a function of the rent. You could be renting a house for $500/mo. that has a property tax bill of $600/mo. In this case, the renter is clearly not paying the property tax.
Yes, the customer does pay for the cost of hiring an employee (the employee's income plus payroll tax) but that's a different issue.
No--it's directly analogous to the property tax and rent example you keep bringing up.
LOL. The employer must have an Insurance Fairy as investor. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy? Where do you think the employer gets the money to pay for insurance? It's just another form of employment compensation. The whole idea of Obamacare is to get the burden of paying insurance off the backs of employers, and in case you did not notice, most $40-50k jobs don't carry insurance, and more and more companies are dropping insurance for employees. This national mandate under Obamacare will finally justify all employers dropping medical insurance for employees.
Seriously--wtf are you talking about. How can you not get it? If the employer provides insurance--the cost is typically shared but it's not a tax. It's a payment for insurance.
There have been numerous examples in this thread alone pointed out by different posters, but at the end of the day, you don't know what you don't know, so all the typing we do won't change that..
OK--should be easy then. Please point one out.
Like this strawman:
The property tax is not a function of the rent. You could be renting a house for $500/mo. that has a property tax bill of $600/mo.
Anybody with functioning brain cells and aware of reality knows how ridiculous that statement is... But I'm sure you can give us a list of landlords that rent out their houses for big loses each month, right?
OK--I'll add strawman argument to the list of things you don't know. What I did was a hypothetical. It was obviously an extreme to get the point across.
There have been several folks on here that have admitted to renting their house for a loss each month...
It was obviously an extreme to get the point across.
And obvious to anyone who isn't a reflexive defender of wealth concentration here. A built house can either sit empty, be sold on, or be rented.
It has no present-day production cost to bring to market, its construction cost and former sales price(s) are sunk costs that have no bearing on what its worth is today, on either the rental market or MLS.
In fact, if income taxes were to double tomorrow, rents would fall tremendously (but not dollar for dollar, as that's how bad supply/demand imbalance has gotten in all popular and populous places to live).
How do you figure?
There is the cost of buying the house, if the costs cannot be recouped there will be a shortage of rentals right quick, as the houses will be sold and the money put to a more productive use. As is the case with rent control.
Reality is much smarter than his arguments above and he knows he's being disingenuous.
He knows the median income for a household is around 50k, and for married households making 50k marginal tax bracket is not 25%.
He knows median net compensation for a single wage earner, from SSA, is going to be around 30k, which is also in the 15% nominal tax bracket.
He knows median income and median wages, as reported at around 50k and 30k, are gross figures for tax purposes and with personal exemptions and standard deductions, taxable incomes of each are much lower than this, further making it unlikely anyone of median income or wage would reach the 25% marginal bracket.
He knows that wages are determined by the market, and while total cost of an employee is certainly a determining factor in the amount of demand for labor at a given price, employers portion of payroll is not a direct pass through that should be considered additional compensation. That is, the market determines wage levels, and if payroll taxes went away tomorrow, wages paid directly to employees will not increase 7.65%.
He knows that state income taxes and state property taxes are deductible from federal taxes, so adding 5% state income taxes and 6% state property taxes to a 25% federal rate to come up with 36% total is bad math.
He knows all of these things. But he continues to make a disingenuous argument anyway.
It is acceptable to me for one to make a factually incorrect argument due to ignorance. One can make an argument that I disagree with and is based on a differing opinion. One can make an argument based on a different interpretation of known history or law. Any of these things can be justified. But for one who knows better to purposely distort truths in order to make an argument, this is the worst kind of deceit. Using your intelligence to knowingly deceive is evil and makes you worse than politicians, who at least do it for measurable personal gain. You win nothing of value by deceiving on an internet message board.
Lying is for sociopaths and children. Which are you?
So according to your logic, you never pay sales tax?
Nope--my example said nothing about paying or not paying sales tax. But of course you pay sales tax.
You do not cut the check to the government but to the merchant, so according to your earlier writing:
If you write a check or get money withheld in your name that goes to the government, you are paying tax.
If you write a check to someone who then has to pay tax on those earnings-you are NOT paying tax.
You are not paying sales tax. See how absurd your standard is.
The property tax is just like gasoline tax: levied on the asset, but ultimately born by the customer.
No, actually, it's not. The property tax is not a function of the rent. You could be renting a house for $500/mo. that has a property tax bill of $600/mo. In this case, the renter is clearly not paying the property tax.
LOL. Goes to show how clueless you are. The gasoline tax is assessed on the gallon: about 50 cents per gallon. Sure, theoretically some idiot like you might sell me gasoline for 40 cents a gallon. How long do you think you would stay in business? Like I said, the collection of property tax is just like gasoline tax: the vendor is forced to be the tax collection agent, and the customer pays a price with all taxes and fees included.
Yes, the customer does pay for the cost of hiring an employee (the employee's income plus payroll tax) but that's a different issue.
No--it's directly analogous to the property tax and rent example you keep bringing up.
Analogous but not a tax issue. The customer does ultimately pay for the cost of hiring an employee as well as paying for the taxes included in the price. Glad you finally agree.
Seriously--wtf are you talking about. How can you not get it? If the employer provides insurance--the cost is typically shared but it's not a tax. It's a payment for insurance.
LOL. So you still believe in the Insurance Fairy or Boss Fairy. What "shared"? The employer only provides anything for the employee in compensation for the latter's work. The employee ultimately pays for it because the wage is lower than otherwise would be! Do you believe the plantation owner "shares" housing, food, clothing, medicine and education with the slaves out of his own pocket? Not taking them out of the slaves' labor output? Oh yeah, that's why you believe in the Government Fairy that owns the "plantation" and doles out "free" shit.
Comments 1 - 40 of 117 Next » Last » Search these comments
I’ve seen some pretty crazy things from the Facebook page “U.S. Uncut,” but recently I saw their reprint of some “facts” from Thom Hartmann that had more than 60,000 shares. This particular billboard was so absurd that I felt compelled to share it and set the record straight. Here’s the image:
Thom Hartmann
There are many things one could say about the above. (Here’s someone else’s takedown.) Let me focus on just some of the more obvious, and in the following I’m going to be lazy and talk as if presidents changed tax rates directly, even though of course they signed legislation that Congress sent them:
==> Hartmann’s narrative implies that the worst boom-bust cycles should have occurred before 1913, since in those dark days the federal income tax was zero (except for wartime). But of course the Great Depression and the Great Recession have both happened with positive federal income tax rates, so even on Hartmann’s own terms, the two worst economic periods in U.S. history are hard to square with his theory-free historical narrative.
==> Hartmann’s narrative completely ignores the role of credit creation and artificially low interest rates in spawning an unsustainable boom, which is inevitably followed by a bust. Rothbard wrote the definitive book on applying Austrian business cycle theory to the Great Depression, and here’s an article I wrote doing the same with the 2008 crisis.
==> Hartmann says Warren Harding cut taxes down to 25% in 1922. No, Harding and then Coolidge cut rates gradually, not reaching a 25% rate until 1925. (For all of my claims on the actual history of the top US federal tax rate, refer to this document.)
==> Hartmann blames the 1929 crash on the boom fueled by the Harding[/Coolidge] tax cuts earlier that decade. OK, then why wasn’t the Clinton boom in the 1990s responsible for the dot-com crash in 2000?
==> Hartmann says Roosevelt “fixed” the foolishly low tax rate of 25% that Coolidge enacted. But for some reason Hartmann ignores the fact that Herbert Hoover raised the tax rate to 63% in 1932, which coincidentally (?) led to the worst single year of the Depression. I’m sure Hartmann ignored that part of the history in the interest of brevity.
==> Hartmann is right that FDR did raise rates, up to 79% in 1936, 81% in 1941, 88% in 1942, and 94% (!) by 1944. So look again at Hartmann’s narrative. After talking about how the 25% tax rate of Harding [sic] caused the Great Depression, Hartmann says that FDR jacked rates up to more than 90 percent and the economy boomed. The innocent reader might have thought that FDR did this right away, and the economy was immediately restored to vigor. Yet even using conventional accounts of “wartime prosperity,” the Great Depression lasted at least until 1940. So FDR’s great policy of jacking up tax rates (e.g. to 79% in 1936) still yielded an awful economy for at least four years. One almost gets the sense that massive tax hikes aren’t the way to fix a depression, ya know?
==> Hartmann totally ignores the tax cuts spearheaded by Kennedy (and carried through by Johnson after JFK was shot). Kennedy’s argument for his cuts sounded very much like supply-side Reaganomics, too. I guess Hartmann left that part of history out because his keyboard broke.
==> Speaking of which, Hartmann blames the early 1980s recession on Reagan dropping the top tax rate down to 28%. But again, if you refer to the pesky historical record, you’ll see that the tax rate under Reagan was cut only gradually, not reaching 28% until 1988. A Chicago School economist on steroids might argue that investors in 1980 looked ahead eight years, rationally expected the coming 28% tax rate, deferred investment accordingly, and caused a bad recession…but I don’t think that’s what Hartmann was getting at.
==> One last observation: Hartmann says the economy boomed because of the 39 percent tax rate under Clinton’s wise reaganstewardship. Under Reagan, the top tax rate was 70% in 1981, 50% from 1982 through 1986, then it dropped to 38.5% in 1987, and it was not cut to 28% until 1988. Isn’t it weird that Reagan’s nutty, low low rate of 50% in the first half of the 1980s caused the worst economy since the Great Depression, but Clinton’s soak-the-rich rate of 39% led to a booming economy?
In summary, one really has to wonder at a movement that is so unconcerned with the actual facts that it can proudly trumpet such nonsense. The power of envy and the lust for State power is truly impressive.