Pic Of The Moment: No Difference Between The Two Parties?

[EarlG]

Thanks to Obama, the rich paid more in taxes in 2013 than they did in 1980

Follow @demunderground

[BootinUp]

1. President Obama has done a fantastic job. nt

[BlueMTexpat]

4. K&R a million or so times! eom

[The Far Left]

47. What's his rate for offshore tax havens? nt

[Scuba]

2. Um, sorry, but ...

In 1980 the highest tax rate was 70%. Today it is 39.6%

Source

In 1980 the highest tax rate on capital gains was 28%. Today it is 20%.

Source

In 1980 the highest corporate income tax rate was 46%. Today it is 39%.

Source and source



The wealthiest may pay more in taxes now, but they're paying a lower percentage than in the past. The reason they are paying more is because they are taking in a (much) larger percentage of the nation's total income.





Please prove me wrong. I'd be delighted to be wrong.

[NewJeffCT]

5. Those are not the only taxes out there, though

there are taxes for social security, medicare and unemployment as well.

In 1980, the combined tax rate for SS & Medicare was 6.13%
It is now 7.65%, with the wealthiest paying about a 1% surcharge for Obamacare.

There was also a 3.8% investment income surtax implemented on the wealthiest as well.

Also, the marginal tax rate you quoted above is only the taxes paid on the last dollar of income earned. The actual tax rates paid are what is shown on the linked article.

[Scuba]

7. Do you agree or disagree that the top rates are lower than in 1980?

[NewJeffCT]

14. the top marginal tax income rates were higher in 1980

but, the actual tax rate paid by the wealthiest has gone up the past few years. Not just the total dollar amounts, but the actual rates.

[Scuba]

15. Still much lower than in 1980.

[NewJeffCT]

23. Yes

but, the point is that the actual tax rate paid by the wealthiest is higher now than it was in 1980.

Back in 1980, you could contribute huge amounts into retirement funds like IRAs - I believe it was up to 100% of your earned income in some cases. But, that unlimited deduction was eliminated and you could later only deduct the first $2,000 of contributions to savings in retirement funds (now, it's something like the first $16,500 is deductible).

Income in 1980: $10,000,000; tax rate 70%; Deduction for contributing $5,000,000 to an IRA gives you a taxable income amount of $5,000,000 and then actual tax paid of $2,800,000. (not counting any other deductions)

Income in 2015: $10,000,000; tax rate 39.6%; Deduction for contributing to IRA $16,500, gives you a taxable income of $9,983,500, and an actual tax paid of $3,953,466. Net gain to the IRS is $1,153,466.

The same with deductions for real estate losses for investment and tax-sheltered properties. Previously, the wealthy would often pool their money and invest in multiple commercial and residential properties, and then use losses with some of the investments to offset their incomes. The amount that could be deducted was capped, thus eliminating a huge advantage for the wealthy.

[aggiesal]

24. Sorry, but ...

You could [font color=red]NOT[/font] contribute huge amounts into retirement (i.e. IRA's) in 1980.

IRA's first started in 1974 and contributions were limited to $1,500 per individual per year.

In 1981, that was raised to $2,000 per individual per year plus an additional $250 for non-working spouses.
Not close to the $5,000,000 you're claiming.

http://finance.zacks.com/year-did-ira-deductions-start-4927.html

[NewJeffCT]

26. I initially said

retirement funds "like" IRAs, not just IRAs. There were some investments that the wealthy could contribute to where they could deduct up to 100% of what they contributed. Those deductions have been eliminated over the years.

However, in my example, I was lazy and just used IRAs.

But, if you don't want me to use IRAs:
1980 Income: $10,000,000. Passive Real Estate Investment Losses $8,000,000. Taxable Income: $2,000,000. Tax Paid at 70% is $1,400,000.

2015 Income: $10,000,000. Passive Real Estate Investment Losses $8,000,000, but cannot deduct anything since income is over $100,000. Taxable Income of $10,000,000. Taxes Paid $3,960,000.

[Scuba]

28. So your point is that loopholes created opportunities to avoid taxes. Still true today.

Sure, you can find a change that hypothetically results in a higher tax rate in 2016, just as you can find the opposite.


But the fact is that top income has soared, with individuals like the Koch brothers increasing their wealth by more than $5 Billion in a single year - each - while the top tax rate has been lowered.

Meanwhile, sales tax and other regressive, and in some cases like Ferguson, abusive tax schemes are foisted on those who least benefit from government.

[7962]

37. A lot of things you could deduct in 1980 went away under the tax deal under reagan

Like credit card interest and many other things

[aggiesal]

32. You mentioned the following ...

"... you could contribute huge amounts into [font color=red]retirement funds[/font] like IRAs."

Passive Real Estate Investment Losses are not retirement funds, and they're not even like IRA's.

You're just changing the goal posts now.

But, I'm sure that anyone making $10,000,000 yearly income has a way to legally have $8,000,000 (or close to it) deductible.

[Blanks]

27. Jimmy Carter was president in 1980...

You're right. The graphic is (I believe) referring to the Reagan tax cuts which couldn't have occurred until Reagan became president in January of '81.

So, while we discuss 1980 as kind of the beginning of the Reagan administration in general terms because that's the year he won the election but his tax cuts didn't take effect until later.

Yes, the top income tax rate was 70% in 1980 and it was lowered to 28% under Reagan.

[aggiesal]

19. Those are payroll taxes, ...

and most wealthy never contribute to payroll taxes.
Notice, in the chart below, the Top 1% [font color=red]RED[/font] is
minimal compared to the other income groups.
The only income group to pay less payroll taxes is the poorest.

[DhhD]

53. Pete Peterson. Was he one of the billionairs that received a tax free loan from raised proceeds

on the Social Security Insurance Trust Fund, set up through the Greenspan Commission in 1983 and which has yet to be paid back and including taxes to the IRS? Who are the other borrowers?

So billionaires kept the SS money. And their families keep most of the Estate Tax.

[creeksneakers2]

41. 1980 is irrelevant

Obama got more money from the rich than we were getting before he took office. He would have gotten even more if he didn't have a GOP Congress.

[reformist2]

45. Thank you. I was thinking there was something a little off with that overly sunny news story.

Wouldn't the 1% love for us to think how hard they are struggling with their whopping 5% tax increase!

[Gene Debs]

3. Nobody would sensibly argue that there's NO difference whatsoever between the two parties. But

to assert that they aren't far too close to each other on certain critical issues would be fundamentally dishonest, no?

[ancianita]

6. So THAT's what all that repeal hoo-hah was really about. I think a lot of citizens were unaware.

[L. Coyote]

8. The Epic Inanity of ‘Both Parties are the Same’

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

The Epic Inanity of ‘Both Parties are the Same’

Even as someone who has spent most of his life voting third party, the claim that there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is simply one of the most ridiculous and reality-defying statements of epic bullshit I have ever heard in my life and I cannot take seriously anyone who makes that claim....

I really admire the amount of restraint in that statement. I'm thinking "You gotta be fucking nuts and moronic too" to believe such crapola."

Ed Brayton goes on:

Only one party has passed more than 100 anti-choice bills after taking control of state legislatures in 2010. Only one party has passed bills to defund Planned Parenthood, putting the healthcare of millions of women in jeopardy. Only one party is furiously opposed to paid parental leave.

Only one party passes bills to prevent trans people from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Only one party supports discrimination against LGBT people in every possible way. Only one party supports giving Christians a “get out of discrimination laws free” card. Only one party rails against marriage equality. Only one party includes organizations that demonize LGBT people as demon-possessed child molesters. Only one party supports gay reversion therapy.

Only one party tries constantly, in every possible way, to cut or eliminate food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies and every other imaginable means of support for the poor.

Only one party puts justices like Scalia, Alito and Thomas on the Supreme Court.

I could go on, ......

[MH1]

16. Please make this an OP

so that I can recommend it.

[arcane1]

42. You just provided a perfect description of the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" scam.

[Thinkingabout]

51. And the same party complains about too much government, too big, too much

Into everyone's business and then they pass laws like these.

[djean111]

9. On the other hand, both parties are in agreement on wars and fracking and messing with Social

Security and crushing college debt and the TPP and leaving millions of people with no or unaffordable to actually use health insurance, among other things I hate. You can cherry pick, but there are a lot of bad things they agree on.

I am no longer thinking I have to have binary thinking about the political parties and politicians who affect my actual life. I am not in the "you have to choose one or the other" box.

[Gore1FL]

10. They aren't paying a higher percentage

When a Democrat gets the top bracket back in the 70% range, I'll be impressed.

[Dawgs]

11. LOL! Not nearly enough. nt

[progressoid]

12. I'm paying more taxes now too.

And I ain't in the 1%.

[demigoddess]

13. we have states that are dying on the vine due to republican governors

and legislatures who put republican fiscal policy into action. Do you want those policies put into action in the federal government? I don't.

[Wibly]

17. Not the time for back slapping

Leonard Pelltier is still in jail, as are tens of thousands of people of colour for minor drug offenses. The drug war continues. The banks have never been brought to account. America continues to meddle in the middle east, and to sell weaponry to the Saudis. The rich continue to get rich, while the poor get poorer. America is still viewed in the world at large as suspect. Still the greatest number of their own people imprisoned. Still serious gender inequality. Still highest rate of child poverty in the developed world.
I'm not saying the US is worse off under the Dems, but they aren't a whole lot better. There's a long way to go, and this is not the time for back slapping.

[PatrynXX]

21. would be nice to see Obama pardon Pelltier

especially when there was no evidence of him doing anything wrong. Except for owning a gun. We need to go back to our roots. Not this Conservadem stuff. and mind you Rachel Maddow who now I'll never watch again , really coined the term. Irony...

[MariaThinks]

18. so Hillary being his chosen successor is a very good thing

[PatrynXX]

20. Don't know who's saying that

There isn't much difference between H and D. Thats all thats being said . He's Pro Gun Control, Pro Planned Parenthood and She isn't But both are very conservative in their economic approach. No New Taxes X_X . Which is idiotic and wish Obama had fought harder to get rid of the TEMPORARY Bush Tax Cuts which are costing us millions. We probably have a surplus by now if not for that

[stupidicus]

22. well, the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly, janus-like condition in DC

is maintained and tolerated due to some diffs on the domestic policy front like taxes and the fear of rightwingnuttery those diffs produce, resulting in sky high motivation to avoid those like the Trump -- the bad cop -- but when it comes to foreign policy it's mostly a bipartisan affair https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/08/democrats-are-now-the-aggressive-war-party/ with all things associated with it, ranging from the NSA spying to MIC support.

That's what many if not most refer to with the "no difference" remark -- insufficient difference to justify support -- not that there are NO diffs.

The few so ignorant as to actually think/believe that there is NO diff are simply used to smear the aforementioned/described and to dodge/avoid defending dem warmongering/FP/etc sins.

like the record of the dem nominee on that front and the current pres who just endorsed her, no?

[Andy823]

25. I agree

Both parties are not the same, even though a large group her on DU continue to spew that right wing meme almost every day, and they try and use that line to convince others NOT TO VOTE come November for the Democratic nominee. How anyone in their right mind could buy into this BS is beyond me.

[lovemydog]

31. +1

[HuckleB]

29. K & R!

[lovemydog]

30. k & r

[FailureToCommunicate]

33. ...

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/themes/city-desk/timthumb.php?src=&q=90&w=640&zc=1

[7962]

38. Practically NO ONE ever paid those high rates. Everyone knows that.

So many deductions reduced what they actually paid. It doesnt matter what the rate is, it only matters how much is PAID.
Back in the 40s, you could even deduct taking your spouse on a business trip with you. Also, many types of income werent considered taxable at that time either, reducing your bill even further
The actual rate paid by the richest back then was around 40%.

[JackRiddler]

54. So?

Practically no one pays the current top rate.

The loopholes actually matter. High rates force the rich to invest their money.

[Hortensis]

55. Good points. And JackRiddler, don't we WANT

the wealthy to invest their money--the right way? Both during the Great Depression and the Great Recession of 2008 a major problem was that the wealthy withheld investment in the nation.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

34. Indeed

[IronLionZion]

35. Yet the stock market has been soaring and millions of new jobs

These past several years. And higher stock market capital gains means even more revenue from the higher tax rates. More people employed means more who are paying income taxes.

Makes you wonder if Republican tax policy has always been BS. How do they justify the economy except to claim the numbers must be manipulated by socialists.

Those Bush tax cuts didn't create nearly as many jobs as Obama's tax increases!

[OnyxCollie]

36. Explain the difference between the two parties

when it comes to torture and domestic surveillance.

I'll wait.

[humbled_opinion]

39. I am a little lost

So he raised taxes, how has that helped the bottom half of the wage earners in America? No free college, no reduced debt, if it never trickles down than what is the use?

[arcane1]

40. Makes sense. Continuing Bush's wars isn't cheap, and they don't pay for themselves

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-obama-exclusive-idUSKCN0YW055

[SusanCalvin]

43. Thanks, Obama....! ;-> nt

[seanbnewyork4]

44. Yeah, that narrative is quite simplistic

And very unhelpful to boot. If Gore had won in 2000, the world wouldn't be in such a dire situation as it is now IMO.

[KG]

46. I lulz'd

[hughee99]

48. Can the president take credit for the 2012 repeal of some

Of the Bush tax cuts when he's a significant reason why the Bush tax cuts lasted 2 years beyond 2010, when they were supposed to "sunset".

[MadDAsHell]

49. Why are we not ALL paying higher tax rates?

Everyone has their own laundry list of things that they think our taxes should be paying for, but everyone also thinks that they and people like them should be exempt from contributing to that effort, and it should be everyone ELSE that pays for these things.

[glowing]

50. It's really great that they are paying more tax money.

Now, if only the people at the bottoms could have a minimum wage that equaled a living wage, job opportunities, and for that tax money to be directed into federal work projects that tackled the infrastructure issues, then the bottom would feel like they are also closing the gap a little bit.

[betsuni]

52. K&R