PDA

View Full Version : History of the Progressive Tax Structure


ebacon
08-14-2012, 07:51 AM
Just a survey.

In your own words what good comes from the progressive tax rate structure?

There must be something or else it would not have been voted in in the first place. It also would not have survived in earnest from 1917-1981 if it was all bad. Rich people controlled the media during those periods just like they do now and they sure didn't like getting taxed. They also tried as hard as they could and often succeeded in getting tax loopholes in their favor. The other side came back with alternative minimum tax.

I'm just curious as to the board members' abilities to see both sides of an issue and at least agree that there are pros and cons. Which side they want is of course subject to differ and can only be resolved civilly by vote.

The Republican vs Democratic shouting match gets old fast. That stuff is available anywhere.

merrylander
08-14-2012, 08:07 AM
Among the wealthy a generation back, people like Carnegie (and I wish they would learn how to pronounce his name) and others there was this attitude of noblesse oblige. Because they had acquired vast wealth they felt they should not only paay higher taxes but also give to the community, e.g., Carnegie Hall, etc.

The current generation of wealthy people, with a few exceptions, appear to be Randians, i.e., enlightened self interest = greed.

beej
08-14-2012, 08:12 AM
It seems to me that, although a progressive tax system does have its shortcomings, such a system is probably the most equitable way of assessing a levy on the general population. It essentially distributes the burden based on one's ability to pay, the rationale being that those who benefit the most from the system should shoulder the greater burden in paying for it.

Although I understand the argument that such a system penalizes success I don't recall ever hearing of anyone who didn't seek out a higher level of compensation because they would have to pay more taxes as a consequence.

Progressive taxation is hardly perfect but I personally think it's the least abhorrent among the possible choices.

BlueStreak
08-14-2012, 08:28 AM
Among the wealthy a generation back, people like Carnegie (and I wish they would learn how to pronounce his name) and others there was this attitude of noblesse oblige. Because they had acquired vast wealth they felt they should not only paay higher taxes but also give to the community, e.g., Carnegie Hall, etc.

The current generation of wealthy people, with a few exceptions, appear to be Randians, i.e., enlightened self interest = greed.

That's pretty much how I see it.

My hometown got the Packard Music Hall, Packard Park and the now defunct Packard Art Museum from the Packard family of automotive fame. The steel barons built some gorgeous parks and man made lakes that still exist and see regular use to this day. (The lakes served a dual purpose. They were primarily built as cooling water reserves for the mills. The recreational use was secondary. It wasn't all philanthropic in nature.:rolleyes:)

These guys today....I'm afraid they think the community exists to serve them.
Actually, if they are as Randian as they appear to be....That is EXACTLY what they think. And, I don't care for them at all.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 08:40 AM
There is HUGE philanthropy in this country among the rich. All you have to do is look at the credits of any PBS show.

I don't have a problem with a progressive tax structure.

Pete

ebacon
08-14-2012, 09:03 AM
Have any on the economic hard right chimed in?

finnbow
08-14-2012, 09:40 AM
I support a progressive income tax, but question whether today's system is indeed progressive for the wealthiest of Americans. Just ask "Mr. 14%," who could become "Mr. 1%" if his tax plan is adopted.

http://img.wpdigital.net/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/toles08142012.jpg

d-ray657
08-14-2012, 10:45 AM
A progressive tax structure is a way for those who have benefited greatly from living in our system to support it proportionately.

Regards,

D-Ray

HatchetJack
08-14-2012, 11:07 AM
We all live in the same system, times are tough. Not fair that only one side
should pay in a bigger percentage while the other can still bask in the former
glory we once enjoyed.
Is there anything in the Constitution that promises all American citizens
a cozy retirement or low taxes for being less productive than their neighbors.

finnbow
08-14-2012, 11:10 AM
Is there anything in the Constitution that promises all American citizens
a cozy retirement or low taxes for being less productive than their neighbors.

Non sequitur alert.:D

ebacon
08-14-2012, 11:49 AM
Good stuff.

My understanding of the history and benefit of the progressive rate tax is that it provides a disincentive to make ludicrous amounts of money off of the labor of others and/or by benefit of machine. It basicly helps create jobs and stabilize the economy by allowing the marketplace to divide itself into smaller pieces of pie.

After a man made his few million for the year the progressive tax kicked in and curbed his motivation so that another motivated man could also get his few million.

Exactly how much money was considered enough was haggled over by the legislature and adjusted annually by finagling the tax tiers and associated rates.

The way I see it it would be better to have a thousand millionaires than one billionaire.

On the other hand I can see where voters might have been fed up in the late 1970s and finally got rid of the progressive tax for all practical purposes. Looking at the tax schedule history it did reach down to the upper middle class during the last years. I suspect the feds wanted money to pay for the military and the voting majority was all warred out after Vietnam and stories of hundred dollar hammers made by crony capitalists.

Is that a fair summary of what happened? I'm hoping for a reply from those that were middle aged at the time. I was barely of voting age and just got hooked on Ronald Reagan's cowboy persona.

beej
08-14-2012, 12:01 PM
The 70s were a tough time tax wise. Not only were we dealing with a Vietnam financial hangover, we were in the midst of the Cold War, hadn't really a clue of a handle on entitlements. Not sure if any of that is what drove Reagan's election or if it was what many saw as Carter's ineffectiveness.

finnbow
08-14-2012, 12:01 PM
My understanding of the history and benefit of the progressive rate tax is that it provides a disincentive to make ludicrous amounts of money off of the labor of others and/or by benefit of machine.

I think studies have shown that the disincentive kicks in only when the level of taxation goes north of 50% (or even more). Raising or lowering taxes in the 20-30% range by a couple of points has no such effect.

ebacon
08-14-2012, 12:17 PM
I think studies have shown that the disincentive kicks in only when the level of taxation goes north of 50% (or even more). Raising or lowering taxes in the 20-30% range by a couple of points has no such effect.

That's why I picked 1981 as the cutoff date. That was the year the top tier went down to 50%. In 1980 it was 70%.

Where the discincentive actually kicks in of course varies by individual. For a laboror such as a dentist the disincentive probably kicked in pretty fast. For a fat cat that makes money sitting on his butt probably not so much.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 12:28 PM
It's a darn good thing that say Jobs didn't stop at a mil.

Pete

ebacon
08-14-2012, 12:44 PM
It's a darn good thing that say Jobs didn't stop at a mil.

Pete

But if he didn't would he have stopped? Would it matter if he had stopped? Sure he was charismatic and a great industrial designer but he was not a great inventor of circuits or software. His team helped him.

Steve Jobs is an inventor on 282 United States Patents. Almost all of them, greater than 90%, are design patents. Also almost all of them, if not all of them, name a lot of other joint inventors. That means Steve had a lot of help. A LOT. Also note that design patents only protect what an invention looks like. By law a design patent cannot protect what an invention does.

I don't want to knock a dead man but like any other fellow in history Steve Jobs was not irreplaceable.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 01:05 PM
Neither are millions of others. I am simply pointing out that the profit motive has given us the wonders of our daily lives.

I'm not fond of government social engineering ;)

Pete

d-ray657
08-14-2012, 01:21 PM
There is not an absolute correlation between money and power, but a very significant one. The consolidation of wealth facilitates the consolidation of power. Those of us here cannot afford lobbyists. Those with wealth can. That enables those with wealth to manipulate the rules to allow them to accumulate more wealth. It's an ugly cycle. To the extent that a progressive tax structure slows down the accumulation of wealth, it also makes for a more equitable distribution of power. I just wish we still had a progressive tax structure.

Regards,

D-Ray

ebacon
08-14-2012, 01:23 PM
Neither are millions of others. I am simply pointing out that the profit motive has given us the wonders of our daily lives.

I'm not fond of government social engineering ;)

Pete

And then we're both on the same page. The only difference is how many dollars does it take before ones motivations are satisfied and courtesy kicks in to leave a little for the other guys that hustling to make a buck or just starting up.

The fact of the matter is that a man will tend to engage in whatever endeavour he has a natural skill for. It might be engineering, or athletics, or art, or music, or culinary arts, or medicine, or any number of trades. Profit motive plays no part in mans tendency when it comes to love of labor. On the other hand he might neglect a labor of love if there is not enough money in it to live on.

Profit motivation theory only goes so far. After some point it is fair to say that a man's head is messed up if he needs billions of dollars and other peoples' failures to be happy.

That is not an attack on Steve Jobs. He walked away from Apple to pursue other artisic interests and then got called back to put Apple back on course. Steve seemed to love art. I don't think he was motived by the profit motive. Instead he seemed to be well compensated for inspiring beautiful work.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 01:36 PM
My reading of history has led me to seriously doubt most aultrisim. It's nice, it happens, but I wouldn't count on it ;)

So where do we put the cap, how much do we decide is enough for other people? Remember when the tax code was reformed a lot of tax loopholes were closed. I'd like to see a chart of the actual percentage of taxes paid back then.

Pete

ebacon
08-14-2012, 01:43 PM
What are you talking about with altruism? You lost me.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 01:45 PM
Sorry, my shpeelleeng needs help. :)

Call it anything that isn't either profit or power motivated.

Pete

ebacon
08-14-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm still lost.

Are you referring to my comment that I think Steve Jobs loved art first and money second?

merrylander
08-14-2012, 01:51 PM
Neither are millions of others. I am simply pointing out that the profit motive has given us the wonders of our daily lives.

I'm not fond of government social engineering ;)

Pete

As long as there is government there is social engineering the alternative ia anarchy. Who the beneficiaries of such engineering are varies by party.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 01:53 PM
eb, no. Btw I mentioned Jobs out of hand, I'm not particularly fond or not fond of him. Gates too.

And Edison. Rockefeller? Carnegie. Thousands of guys that kept it up past a modest bank account, have done a great deal of good. While some folks have done great things for their love of craft, or science, or humanity, boatloads of stuff came from rich guys ;)

Pete

merrylander
08-14-2012, 01:55 PM
Sorry, my shpeelleeng needs help. :)

Call it anything that isn't either profit or power motivated.

Pete

Pete I have never done anything in my life that was not for profit, it depends upon how you define profit.:)

ebacon
08-14-2012, 01:59 PM
No. Btw I mentioned Jobs out of hand, I'm not particularly fond or not fond of him. Gates too.

And Edison. Rockefeller? Carnegie. Thousands of guys that kept it up past a modest bank account, have done a great deal of good. While some folks have done great things for their love of craft, or science, or humanity, boatloads of stuff came from rich guys ;)

Pete

I understand that too, but that's for another thread. A lot of those guys got forced into giving money either by social pressure or legislative action. It's not they sat on the Lusitania dreaming about bringing European opera houses to the ghettos.

In any event my hope in this thread was to take the discussion of the progressive income tax beyond the politicians' rhetoric. They will say the purpose is to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Or to pay back for the structure that enabled them to get rich.

Now we know there is more to the story.

piece-itpete
08-14-2012, 02:05 PM
Ah so http://www.ryanadamsarchive.com/images/smilies/chinese.gif

Rob I understand the profit thing and agree there's other things besides money :)

Pete