Proposal for a 28th Amendment

And the source of this graph?

Surely you do not think that I just created it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/R_t1hPDtjJI/AAAAAAAAA64/XRaw4Q3Bxdg/s1600-h/1954-vs-2006-real-individual-income-tax-revenue.JPG

Ah, yes. A blog. This graph shows total individual income tax revenue - not the rate. More people paying tax means more revenue.

towermonkey wrote: Ah, yes. A blog. This graph shows total individual income tax revenue - not the rate. More people paying tax means more revenue.

Exactly. A more informative chart is located here . This is a historical chart showing receipts (tax revenues) as percentage of GDP. In 1954, Individual Income Taxes were 7.8% and Corporate Income Taxes were 5.6%. In 2006, Individual were 7.9% and Corporate 2.7%. So, Individual rates not too much changed but Corporate rates are halved +. Nice! Even better though, let's take a look at 2009 where Individual is 6.5% and Corporate is 1%. Very, very NICE! for Corporations especially. What does MB think of those numbers? Pretty effing bomb, eh?

The website I linked to gives lots and lots and lots of historical tax and spending information. Very useful information if you really want to inform yourself.

towermonkey wrote: Much lower. In 1954, earnings of $325,000 and above were taxed at 72% and earnings of $700,000 and up were taxed at 90%. (Those numbers are adjusted for inflation - the 72% bracket actually started at $44,000)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html

(Edited to add link)

Tax bracket history doesn't mean much. Back in the days of huge tax brackets, there were also huge loopholes which are gone today (most gone in the 1980's). People didn't really pay 90% of their income in tax back then.

For federal income tax, you need to look at effective tax paid. That's what people really paid after all the exemptions, deductions, credits, and loopholes.

Just considering effective tax paid since 1979, back then the upper tax bracket (from your source too) was 70%. But the effective federal income tax paid for all individuals was 11%, and 21.8% for the upper 1% of income earners.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

I keep hearing this claim about how much lower tax we pay compared to the past when it was 90% or 70%. But it is just not correct.

I will say this, though. Unlike what Major Bean says, effective individual federal income tax has gone down. From my link (from the same place as yours), the effective rate has gone down for all individuals from 11% in 1979 to 9.3% in 2007 (and I can get more recent data if requested, but don't want a huge post here).

For the top 1% the effective tax rate dropped from 21.8% to 19%. CBO data shows the same thing.

Now I'm just talking about federal income tax. For all taxes paid from everywhere, that's a different discussion.

But every time I read an article saying how we used to pay 70-90% max for federal income tax, and our taxes are about half that now, I know that article is just playing politics. Yes, it's dropped a little bit, but things haven't changed nearly that much.

major bean wrote: Surely you do not think that I just created it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/R_t1hPDtjJI/AAAAAAAAA64/XRaw4Q3Bxdg/s1600-h/1954-vs-2006-real-individual-income-tax-revenue.JPG

That just tells me which blog you posted a link from... I asked you the source of the chart...

LadyJazzer wrote:

major bean wrote: Surely you do not think that I just created it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/R_t1hPDtjJI/AAAAAAAAA64/XRaw4Q3Bxdg/s1600-h/1954-vs-2006-real-individual-income-tax-revenue.JPG

That just tells me which blog you posted a link from... I asked you the source of the chart...

That is a most excellent question because the blog doesn't appear to state what the source of the information was for the graph. It appears that the 2006 information on the graph is the same as the 2006 info from the site that I linked to but I'm not seeing the 1954 info that corresponds to the graph. Hmmm... whatever am I missing?

RDaneel:

Welcome to the forum. Finally a thinker. Intriguing hypothesis and worth exploring. I propose an open discussion to understand all the ramifications. A great venue for just that would be at one of our upcoming Tea Party meetings, in a round table discussion. We could dissect this proposal apart and reassemble it. Sound interesting to you. BTW thanks for joining us last Thursday evening at our last meeting. It was great meeting you.

Just started reading your book, intriguing, to say the least.

Hi everyone - thanks for the welcomes!

Nmysys: sounds like fun. It was a pleasure meeting everyone, including the Honorable Mr. Coffman.

A couple of points in general response to the discussion:
Section 2 of the proposed is indeed quite flexible: "..not to exceed 15%..." I don't make that point strong enough in my blog. I'll fix that. It wouldn't take an amendment to alter the tax rate, but it is capped. As to the Constitution as a whole being crafted with the future in mind... some parts yes and some parts no. I make that point in the third blog entry about the proposed.

I'll reserve the rest of my comments for the discussion at the next meeting.

thanks again all!
-- RDaneel

jmc wrote:

major bean wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: major, what may be most important is debt to gdp. When we've gone too far, as Greece did, we're over the edge. Healthy economies are no more than 20% debt to gdp. We're already past that..

That is also my understanding, but economists are saying that if we refuse to raise the debt ceiling, then there is going to be a horrible economic crash. This baffles me and I need to come to grips with what variables are in play here.

Defaulting on our obligations? Not my Country.

Sorry if this is posted elsewhere in the thread.


................"Next year, about 7 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt. Tax revenue is projected to cover at least 70 percent of all government expenditures. So, under any circumstances, there will be plenty of money to pay our creditors.

Moreover, as the Congressional Research Service has noted, the Treasury secretary himself has the discretion to decide which bills to pay first in the event that a cash flow shortage occurs. "........................"In 1985, Congress waited nearly three months after the debt limit was reached before authorizing a permanent increase. In 1995, 4 1/2 months passed between hitting the ceiling and congressional action. And in 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In each case, the U.S. and the economy survived.



Not only did the economy survive, but the United States did not default on its debt obligations, the United States did not lose its credit rating, and interest rates did not go up as a result of the default.



To say that failing to raise the debt ceiling will cause a default is a lie and anyone who says it is a liar."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php? ... s&id=43144