The rich will pay more taxes, Boehner says

[twomp]

Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Obama, however, continued to insist on Republicans first ensuring no tax hike for anyone but the top 2% of Americans as a first step toward a broader agreement on tackling the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Matt Collins]

Define "rich" and define "wealthy"?

I know a lot of people who make good money and employ others, but are not living a lavish lifestyle by any stretch.

[lx43]

My taxes are already going up over 3% because of this Obamcare tax on my unearned income. How much fucking more do I have to pay? A 100% of everything that I have.

[AuH20]

Is this tactic to appease the foreign bondholders?????????? That's what it smells to me. Nevertheless, it will buy them a few months.

[Inkblots]

Is this tactic to appease the foreign bondholders?????????? That's what it smells to me. Nevertheless, it will buy them a few months.

Not really. Observe:
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3633/taxrates.jpg

Adjusting the top marginal tax rate has essentially no impact on total Federal income tax receipts - in fact, the correlation coefficient between them over the plotted period is -0.05. This means that the two variables are essentially decoupled, but if there's any impact at all, raising the top marginal rate slightly decreases income tax receipts.

This is because the top rate payers are precisely the people with the resources and incentives to engage in jurisdictional arbitrage, leave income as unrealized capital gains, or game the tax code to minimize their payments. If our fearless leaders in Washington really wanted to boost revenues as the primary vehicle for closing the deficit, they'd need to take the one move that is positively correlated with rising tax receipts: pass a broad-based tax rise on the middle class. Which, interestingly enough, will happen automatically at the end of this year.

[nobody's_hero]

And the rich will just leave, and whoever is in the next-highest bracket becomes the new 'rich'. Which leads to an endless cycle of 'shaving a little off the top' . . . until we've reached rock bottom.

That's the thing about wealth redistribution. You don't actually have to be wealthy to have your income spread around. You just have to have more than the guy next to you.

I'd spare myself a sigh of relief, for I recall someone once saying that the income tax was only going to apply to the richest 2%.

[jj-]

boehner go home

[oyarde]

Well , he is wrong about my income, I have become so tired of listening to these reprobates talk about how to divide my income, I have decided to pay less tax, soon, I may choose to participate at an even lower level, Now, I am marking myself down for a raise in 2013.

[Victor Grey]

Define "rich" and define "wealthy"?


To the Boehner and Obama crowds?

Anyone approaching 6-figures a year.

Approaching. Not after taxes or necessarily in that range formally.

Those in the 6 range are the same as those in the 8 and 9 in their eyes, in terms of not paying their fair share. However that arbitrary concept works.

[Shane Harris]

Not really. Observe:
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3633/taxrates.jpg

Adjusting the top marginal tax rate has essentially no impact on total Federal income tax receipts - in fact, the correlation coefficient between them over the plotted period is -0.05. This means that the two variables are essentially decoupled, but if there's any impact at all, raising the top marginal rate slightly decreases income tax receipts.

This is because the top rate payers are precisely the people with the resources and incentives to engage in jurisdictional arbitrage, leave income as unrealized capital gains, or game the tax code to minimize their payments. If our fearless leaders in Washington really wanted to boost revenues as the primary vehicle for closing the deficit, they'd need to take the one move that is positively correlated with rising tax receipts: pass a broad-based tax rise on the middle class. Which, interestingly enough, will happen automatically at the end of this year.

great chart. shared. source?

[John F Kennedy III]

John Boehner is a Great Conservative.

[Rudeman]

A lot of the people on the left want to raise taxes because they think it'll raise revenue, we obviously disagree. BUT they believe they can bring in 20-21% of GDP in revenue, why has no one pointed out that federal revenue has only been above 20% of GDP 3 times in US history? 1944 = 20.91%, 1945 = 20.4% and 2000 = 20.62%.

The Clinton era was the most revenue the federal government took in over an 8 year period (94-01) and that was an average of 19.29% of GDP.

Obama's budget somehow projects to bring in even more revenue in 2015-22 (19.49% of GDP) and yet his plan still doesn't balance.

Now that might seem absurd until you see what the CBO projects over the same period: 20.59% of GDP in revenue with every year being 20+% of GDP and projects that we'll reach 21+% for the first time ever by 2022. This also doesn't balance.


The liberals like to bash Ryan's budget but his revenue projections were at least in the realm of plausibility and not some fantasy land projections (18.48%).

Bottom line, even with fantasy revenue projections they still can't produce a balanced budget, yet they pretend that spending isn't the problem. :rolleyes:


If anyone cares about the actual numbers according to whitehouse.gov here it is in print form:


Year GDP Revenue % of GDP
1930 97.4 4.2
1931 83.9 3.7
1932 67.6 2.8
1933 57.6 3.5
1934 61.2 4.8
1935 69.6 5.2
1936 78.5 5.0
1937 87.8 6.1
1938 89.0 7.6
1939 89.1 7.1
1940 96.8 6.8
1941 114.1 7.6
1942 144.3 10.1
1943 180.3 13.3
1944 209.2 20.9
1945 221.4 20.4
1946 222.6 17.7
1947 233.2 16.5
1948 256.6 16.2
1949 271.3 14.5
1950 273.1 14.4
1951 320.2 16.1
1952 348.7 19.0
1953 372.5 18.7
1954 377.0 18.5
1955 395.9 16.5
1956 427.0 17.5
1957 450.9 17.7
1958 460.0 17.3
1959 490.2 16.2
1960 518.9 17.8
1961 529.9 17.8
1962 567.8 17.6
1963 599.2 17.8
1964 641.5 17.6
1965 687.5 17.0
1966 755.8 17.3
1967 810.0 18.4
1968 868.4 17.6
1969 948.1 19.7
1970 1,012.7 19.0
1971 1,080.0 17.3
1972 1,176.5 17.6
1973 1,310.6 17.6
1974 1,438.5 18.3
1975 1,560.2 17.9
1976 1,738.1 17.1
1977 1,973.5 18.0
1978 2,217.5 18.0
1979 2,501.4 18.5
1980 2,724.2 19.0
1981 3,057.0 19.6
1982 3,223.7 19.2
1983 3,440.7 17.5
1984 3,844.4 17.3
1985 4,146.3 17.7
1986 4,403.9 17.5
1987 4,651.4 18.4
1988 5,008.5 18.2
1989 5,399.5 18.4
1990 5,734.5 18.0
1991 5,930.5 17.8
1992 6,242.0 17.5
1993 6,587.3 17.5
1994 6,976.6 18.0
1995 7,341.1 18.4
1996 7,718.3 18.8
1997 8,211.7 19.2
1998 8,663.0 19.9
1999 9,208.4 19.8
2000 9,821.0 20.6
2001 10,225.3 19.5
2002 10,543.9 17.6
2003 10,980.2 16.2
2004 11,676.0 16.1
2005 12,428.6 17.3
2006 13,206.5 18.2
2007 13,861.4 18.5
2008 14,334.4 17.6
2009 13,937.5 15.1
2010 14,359.7 15.1
2011 14,958.6 15.4

Direct link to xls file: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z2.xls
Direct link to whitehouse.gov page with all sorts of historical tables: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[Noob]

Rand should try to attach Obamacare repeal to any of the tax bills.

[ghengis86]

Rand should try to attach Obamacare repeal to any of the tax bills.

Best idea yet

[Noob]

Best idea yet
Let's jump on this, call their offices and demand that they attach Obamacare repeal to the tax bills. Maybe they would respond to it,

[ghengis86]

Let's jump on this, call their offices and demand that they attach Obamacare repeal the tax bills. Maybe they would respond to it,

This should be pitched in grassroots central

[Inkblots]

great chart. shared. source?

Thanks. The chart is my own work. The data on top marginal rates (as well as median rates, not shown) was taken from Saez et al. (2010). The GDP and person income tax revenue figures come from the Office of Management and Budget historical tables.

[Matt Collins]

To the Boehner and Obama crowds?

Anyone approaching 6-figures a year.

Approaching. Not after taxes or necessarily in that range formally.

Those in the 6 range are the same as those in the 8 and 9 in their eyes, in terms of not paying their fair share. However that arbitrary concept works.It's my understanding that if you live in the north east and make less than 6 figures then you're pretty much in poverty.