You're not the first to post about the fairtax on these boards.

Here's a thread from 2004: Whats your opinion of the FairTax?

The topic comes up often enough. I'd provide more links to previous discussions of the topic but the search feature doesn't work as well as it should (imo). I've made that assertion about taxes before and had lengthy discussions involving plenty of facts and figures. For example, I posted a link to Time for Tax Hikes (or was it Tax Cuts: Theology, Facts & Totally F*cked -- they're both written by the same person and both make the same general point). I know it wasn't The Great Tax Con Job. Different author but it makes the same general point too.

Quote:
...
Reagan cut top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires from 74% down to 38% and there was an immediate surge in the markets - followed by the worst crash since the Great Depression and the failure of virtually the entire nation's savings and loan banking system.

Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell.

Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich, but W. Bush dropped them again - including taking taxes on unearned income (interest and dividends - the "income" that people like W. born with a trust fund "earn" as they sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive in the mail) down to a top rate of 15%. (That's right - trust fund babies like Bush and Scaife pay a MAXIMUM 15% federal income tax on their dividend and interest income, thanks to the second Bush tax cut.) The result of this surge in easy money for the wealthy, combined with deregulation in the financial markets, was the "froth" Greenspan worried about and led us straight into the Second Republican Great Depression, ongoing today.

The math is really pretty simple. When the uber-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes are cut for the rich, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.
...

If you want to take a stab at debunking those assertions, have at it.

In the earlier discussion of the first two article that I could not find a link to, I posted a table listing US GDP from 1929 to 1969 showing that high top tax rates don't retard economic growth. I can't find that post using the search feature, but I saved the table in a text file so I'll post it again below.

A search for US GDP did lead me to uncover a few past gems (imo [grin])

Who Really Pays Taxes in America? (2004)
If America Is Richer, Why Are Its Families So Much Less Secure? (2004)
Planet Slum (2004)
The European Dream? (2004)
Global Inequality and the Spectre of Capitalism (2006)
Phase of Impact: Global Systemic Crises (2006)
Tax Cuts, Debt Ceiling, Gold Spikes, Interest Rates, Bubble Burst ... (2006)
[These last two warned about the pending economic crisis. Calling Peter Schiff... [grin]]
Wall Street Implosion (2008)

And here's a post where I dropped a dozen links attesting to the decline of social mobility in the United States. (2008)

These links don't have much to do with your question, but I found them during my search so I thought I'd share the look back.

At any rate, here's the table.

                          Top marginal    TaxableYear    GDP adj ($bn)  Delta    tax rate (%)    income over--1929    865.2                   24              100,0001930    790.7         -74.5     25              100,0001931    739.9         -50.8     25              100,0001932    643.7         -96.2     63              1,000,0001933    635.5          -8.2     63              1,000,0001934    704.2          68.7     63              1,000,0001935    766.9          62.7     63              1,000,0001936    866.6          99.7     79              5,000,0001937    911.1          44.5     79              5,000,0001938    879.7         -31.4     79              5,000,0001939    950.7          71.0     79              5,000,0001940    1034.1         83.4     81.1            5,000,0001941    1211.1        177.0     81              5,000,0001942    1435.4        224.3     88              200,0001943    1670.9        235.5     88              200,0001944    1806.5        135.6     94             200,0001945    1786.3        -20.2     94              200,0001946    1589.4       -196.9     86.45           200,0001947    1574.5        -14.9     86.45           200,0001948    1643.2         68.7     82.13           400,0001949    1634.6         -8.6     82.13           400,0001950    1777.3        142.7     84.36           400,0001951    1915.0        137.7     91              400,0001952    1988.3         73.3     92              400,0001953    2079.5         91.2     92              400,0001954    2065.4        -14.1     91              400,0001955    2212.8        147.4     91              400,0001956    2255.8         43.0     91              400,0001957    2301.1         45.3     91              400,0001958    2279.2        -21.9     91              400,0001959    2441.3        162.1     91              400,0001960    2501.8         60.5     91              400,0001961    2560.0         58.2     91              400,0001962    2715.2        155.2     91              400,0001963    2834.0        118.8     91              400,0001964    2998.6        164.6     77              400,0001965    3191.1        192.5     70              200,0001966    3399.1        208.0     70              200,0001967    3484.6         85.5     70              200,0001968    3652.7        168.1     75.25           200,0001969    3765.4        112.7     77              200,000

source of gdp info: http://www.measuringworth.org/usgdp/

I don't have a url handy for the source of those tax rates.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You're not the first to post about the fairtax on these boards...

Thanks man!

I love how people claim the 60's were the golden age of sticking it to the rich with incredibly high top marginal tax rates. Perhaps these people should investigate what the tax structure was actually like in the 60's before regurgitating these talking points.

Income               Tax Rate$0       -  $4,000   20.0%$4,000   -  $8,000   22.0%$8,000   -  $12,000  26.0%$12,000  -  $16,000  30.0%$16,000  -  $20,000  34.0%                      $20,000  -  $24,000  38.0%$24,000  -  $28,000  43.0%$28,000  -  $32,000  47.0%$32,000  -  $36,000  50.0%$36,000  -  $40,000  53.0%                          $40,000  -  $44,000  56.0%$44,000  -  $52,000  59.0%$52,000  -  $64,000  62.0%$64,000  -  $76,000  65.0%$76,000  -  $88,000  69.0%$88,000  - $100,000  72.0%$100,000 - $120,000  75.0%$120,000 - $140,000  78.0%$140,000 - $160,000  81.0%$160,000 - $180,000  84.0%                 $180,000 - $200,000  87.0%$200,000 - $300,000  89.0%$300,000 - $400,000  90.0%$400,000 - and over  91.0%

Of course marginal rates are a useless metric for estimating how much someone pays since no one pays the marginal rates. There are TONS of tax deductions built into the system and the effective rate is much, much lower then the rates listed above. Also, when these rates started dropping, they also started removing some of the deductions present in the system. They were simplifying the system overall and could lower the marginal tax rates since there were fewer ways to get around it. Of course you'll never hear any of that from the proponents of a 90% tax on the rich.

Nice table. Did you make those figures up yourself? I don't suppose you could make up some median income figures for us too - or would that be asking too much?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Nice table. Did you make those figures up yourself? I don't suppose you could make up some median income figures for us too - or would that be asking too much?

It's not top secret, or even hard to find.

1960 Median Income

So the median income tax bracket in 1960 was 22% compared to 15% today. The minimum income tax bracket was twice what it is today. But once again, these comparisons are almost meaningless without taking the various deductions into account.

Looks to me that they're too hard for you to find. Either that or you're just too rude to cite the specific source of the figures in your table. Just the same, thanks for making up the median income figures and for letting on that you're talking about 1960. Oh wait! You didn't make up any media income figure you just made the claim that it was taxed at 22%. How convenient for you! But I have to ask you, if differences in deductions make the comparison meaningless, why did you bother making up the figures in your table? That seems like a lot of work for nothing.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
I love how people claim the 60's were the golden age of sticking it to the rich with incredibly high top marginal tax rates. Perhaps these people should investigate what the tax structure was actually like in the 60's before regurgitating these talking points.

...There are TONS of tax deductions built into the system and the effective rate is much, much lower then the rates listed above.

I'm unable to discern what point you're trying to make...?
Your post is written as if it provided clear evidence to discredit those people who "claim the 60's were the golden age," yet your post doesn't actually seem to hold anything to that effect.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Looks to me that they're too hard for you to find. Either that or you're just too rude to cite the specific source of the figures in your table. Just the same, thanks for making up the median income figures and for letting on that you're talking about 1960. Oh wait! You didn't make up any media income figure you just made the claim that it was taxed at 22%. How convenient for you! But I have to ask you, if differences in deductions make the comparison meaningless, why did you bother making up the figures in your table? That seems like a lot of work for nothing.

They aren't made up. Look at the first fucking link in the google search I showed you. Exactly the same situation with the median income for 1960. The first result for both searches yield the sources for the information I posted.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I'm unable to discern what point you're trying to make...?
Your post is written as if it provided clear evidence to discredit those people who "claim the 60's were the golden age," yet your post doesn't actually seem to hold anything to that effect.

A lot of tax the rich liberals (like Lessbread) often cite the 60's as the prime example of how our tax code should be to really stick it to the rich. Ignoring the fact that the tax brackets were higher for EVERYONE and that the marginal tax rate is meaningless unless you factor in all of the deductions available. They see a high number listed on a chart and ignorantly think, "Oooo if we could do this to the rich then, why not now?"

Quote: Original post by LessBread
You want a fair tax system? Jack up the top rates to the 70% rate they were back in the 1960's. Then pay down the national debt.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I'm unable to discern what point you're trying to make...?
Your post is written as if it provided clear evidence to discredit those people who "claim the 60's were the golden age," yet your post doesn't actually seem to hold anything to that effect.

A lot of tax the rich liberals (like Lessbread) often cite the 60's as the prime example of how our tax code should be to really stick it to the rich. Ignoring the fact that the tax brackets were higher for EVERYONE and that the marginal tax rate is meaningless unless you factor in all of the deductions available. They see a high number listed on a chart and ignorantly think, "Oooo if we could do this to the rich then, why not now?"

Regardless, you still seem to be disputing whether the rich paid more, while providing no evidence of such. (And, it might to note that the "poor" paid zero percent in income taxes a few decades ago, so the income tax code certainly wasn't "sticking it" to them.)