Dems Want to Up Debt Ceiling to Almost 2 Trillion

[Lurker]

Embar, you posted the proof showing that effective tax rates have declined a lot over the decades. Unfortunately for you, you posted that after you tried to argue that effective tax rates might have been lower in the 1950's than they are now. Then you bolstered my point further by saying that some peoples taxes had gone down even more than the top quintiles had, while comically accusing me of being blinding by hatred.

All in all, this has been classic Embar. What a raging buffoon you are.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What I posted, and what you failed to grasp, was that the effective tax rates did not correlate to nominal tax rates. Is that clear enough for you?

[Lurker]

You strongly implied that Partha was wrong to say taxes were much higher in 1950 than they are now and you said he didn't "get it". You went so far as to argue that taxes might have been lower in 1950 than they are now, and then proved the exact opposite of that. After proving yourself wrong, you walked back your argument and said you only meant that there wasn't an exact correlation between tax rates.

You are a buffoon.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Embar Angylwrath]

What I strongly implied, and if you'd read my posts again with at least one eye open, is that effective tax rates can't be correlated to nominal tax rates. I don't know why you're working this bone.

[Lurker]

Which leads us back here.

Glad we're all on the same page now. Taxes were much higher in the 1950's than they are now. Duh.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I've been looking for effective tax rates for that time period. All I've been able to fin was stuff going back to 1979. With just nominal tax rates, one can't make a statement to lower or high taxes in the 50s.

[Kulaf]

Nice job walking back your arguments.

Anyways, glad we're all on the same page now. Taxes were much higher in the 1950's than they are now. Duh.

At first I thought you were just playing dumb on this......now I am not so sure. I am beginning to think that you drank the same kool-aid as Partha. You look back on those historical charts and gnash your teeth that the max rate now is so much lower while having no idea why.

Until you make some intelligent post showing your understanding of how tax rate calculations have changed over the years you can bounce your arguements off Embar. I'll take a pass on proving the bloody obvious.

[Lurker]

Are you back to arguing that effective tax rates are higher now than they were in the 1950's?

/facepalm

Edit: Pick an argument and stick to it. Are you simply saying there's no exact correlation between marginal rates and effective rates? No shit. Are you trying to argue that effective rates are higher now than they were? Sorry, that's just plain false and runs counter to all the manure Republicans have been shoveling the base for decades. The information Embar posted didn't show an exact correlation, but it did show that there was correlation. Even in the 90's and 00's, when the marginal rate was lowered the effective tax rate went down, when it was raised the effective tax rate went up.

So spare me. You think you're making an intelligent point, but you're just acting like a moron. Oh, and you broke your little experiment about being nice.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Are you back to arguing that effective tax rates are higher now than they were in the 1950's?

/facepalm

No, he's not. Nor am I. Neither of us are making that argument, we don't know how to make that more clear to you. What we're saying is nominal tax rates do not equal effective tax rates. But at least you're talking the same language now. Do you have stats or info that show the effective tax rates in the 50s? I'd love to see it, I can't find any, and I'd like to be able to answer this question for myself.

[Lurker]

I'll see what I can dig up tomorrow.

And I think you should re-read what Partha initially said, how you and Kulaf responded, and what that response implied. It certainly didn't sound like you were simply saying there wasn't an exact correlation between marginal and effective rates.

And Kulaf continues to imply that taxes are about the same as they were then. It's an absurdly stupid statement, and doubly ironic coming from a poster who's falsely argued that tax cuts (lowering the marginal rate) in the past several decades led to increased federal revenue above what it would have been without the tax cuts.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't read that into Kulaf's statement. But let me know what you dig up, your link-fu is strong. My instinct is that effective tax rates really haven't changed all that much over the years. And certainly since 1979, most effective tax rates have fallen, but percentage wise (and by this I mean a quintile rate rate in 1979 divided by the same quintile rate in 2006) shows the greatest tax relief going to the lower quintiles.

[Kulaf]

Are you back to arguing that effective tax rates are higher now than they were in the 1950's?

/facepalm

Edit: Pick an argument and stick to it. Are you simply saying there's no exact correlation between marginal rates and effective rates? No shit. Are you trying to argue that effective rates are higher now than they were? Sorry, that's just plain false and runs counter to all the manure Republicans have been shoveling the base for decades. The information Embar posted didn't show an exact correlation, but it did show that there was correlation. Even in the 90's and 00's, when the marginal rate was lowered the effective tax rate went down, when it was raised the effective tax rate went up.

So spare me. You think you're making an intelligent point, but you're just acting like a moron. Oh, and you broke your little experiment about being nice.

The problem here is you keep trying to paint me into some corner via some imaginary arguement you think I am making. My one and only point is that you cannot claim taxes were "incredibly high" in the 50's by just looking at what the rate was at the time as some kind of indicator that just because the rate appears to be lower now that somehow we are being taxed less.

Do you understand that?

[Kulaf]

Here is what I posted:

You cannot directly compare tax rates from the 50's to current rates due to several redefinitions of the tax brackets/rates in the IRS code.

Notice that there is no talk of higher or lower or any other mention of "effective tax rates". Your posts after that dishonestly trying to restate my "arguement":

"If you two really want to make the absurd argument that tax rates are higher now than they were in 1950...."

"The funniest part of all this is that you and Kulaf are arguing that taxes aren't lower now than they were in 1950......"

"Anyways, glad we're all on the same page now. Taxes were much higher in the 1950's than they are now. Duh."

"Are you back to arguing that effective tax rates are higher now than they were in the 1950's?"

"And Kulaf continues to imply that taxes are about the same as they were then."

Bottom line here is I don't KNOW that the effective tax rate now is the same/lower/higher than it was then. Everything I have read from the Tax Center and every other website I have visited ever on taxation has big huge disclaimers that indexation renders direct comparrison between eras under different tax codes impossible from the data presented. If you have normalized data I would be just as curious as Embar to actually see it.

[Lurker]

Stop lying about what you claimed. For example, in this post you strongly implied that effective tax rates were the same now as they were in 1950. Embar posted absolute proof that shows a correlation between marginal rates and effective rates going back to 1979. I'll try to find data earlier than that, but there's no reason to assume that things have changed so much that the same wouldn't hold true going back to the 50's. You aren't being honest. At all. Your last post was pathetic.

[Kulaf]

Stop lying about what I actually posted.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Stop lying about what you claimed. For example, in this post you strongly implied that effective tax rates were the same now as they were in 1950. Embar posted absolute proof that shows a correlation between marginal rates and effective rates going back to 1979. I'll try to find data earlier than that, but there's no reason to assume that things have changed so much that the same wouldn't hold true going back to the 50's. You aren't being honest. At all. Your last post was pathetic.

No Lurker, what I posted doesnt show what you say it shows. In fact, other data shows the exact opposite.

Since 1979, the tax code has had max marginal rates from 70% to 28%. And as many as 16 differrent tax brackets and as few as three. There's no way to correlate marginal tax rates to effective tax rates.

[Lurker]

After some digging, there doesn't seem to be any reliable data about effective tax rates prior to 1979 when the CBO started tracking it. I found one study that went back as far as 1960 and showed that the top 1% of wage earners had a much higher effective tax rate in 1960 than they do now when looking at all forms of taxation. There's no reason to believe that trend wouldn't hold true going back to 1950.

I agree that an exact correlation can't be made, but the data does show that when marginal rates drop effective rates drop and vice versa, and to argue that effective rates for top earners hasn't gone down over the decades is absurd. Of course, you both say you aren't making that argument.

[Kulaf]

Finally.

[Partha]

But I never said a damn thing about an exact correlation between rates. I said tax rates were higher, and everyone agrees. So quit your useless Clinton-style parsing about what is is, and admit that the rich have it far easier now then they've had since before the 30's.

[Kulaf]

No you said they were "incredibly high". Saying that compares what they were then to what they are now.