tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post6733416880121685964..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: "Lowest Tax Burden"? There's a Reason for That!Dad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-3450097214463445352012-07-12T20:49:22.718-05:002012-07-12T20:49:22.718-05:00The reference was to when effective tax rates were...The reference was to when effective tax rates were below 30%. Interestingly enough, the top marginal tax rate in 1960 at the end of the Eisenhower decade was 91%. No wonder the deficit was so low! Maybe we should try it again.<br /><br />Also, that was over 50 years ago, Anonbo.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-85352902020145203482012-07-12T16:48:33.014-05:002012-07-12T16:48:33.014-05:00Look at your OWN TABLE, and find the Eisenhower ye...Look at your OWN TABLE, and find the Eisenhower years, Jimbo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-33907323993955644322012-07-12T15:55:29.773-05:002012-07-12T15:55:29.773-05:00There WERE no decades when the budget was "ne...There WERE no decades when the budget was "near-balanced". The only thing even close was during Clinton's second term.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z2.xls" rel="nofollow">Source</a>Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-89761913384354047302012-07-12T05:29:30.343-05:002012-07-12T05:29:30.343-05:00Effective tax rates for top earners were well belo...<i>Effective tax rates for top earners were well below 30% for decades BEFORE the crisis as well</i><br /><br />You mean all those decades when the budget was near-balanced?<br /><br />Gee. So it wasn't the revenues that were the problem...<br /><br />Could it be the SPENDING?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-2291301961108743852012-07-11T23:07:19.005-05:002012-07-11T23:07:19.005-05:00First of all, "the last couple of years"...First of all, "the last couple of years" is 2010 and 2011. The data referenced is 2008-09, which s the most recent data available right now.<br /><br />Second, who's talking about the lowest tax burden over the "last couple of years" anyway? Effective tax rates for top earners were well below 30% for decades BEFORE the crisis as well. Maybe 2008-2009 marked the absolute low point, but we're talking a difference of about point or so. So what? Top earner effective income tax rates are still VERY close to the lowest in a century. And, if you work in the glorified casino also known as private equity, you pay, oh, about a 14% effective tax rate. I've got world's smallest violin out again, dadster. <br /><br />And no shit top earners lost a bigger share of income in 2008-09. They take dividends. Lots of them. They're income is highly influenced by market fluctuations. The market collapsed in '08 remember? The only reason you don't see a return to parabolic income gains by top earners since 2009 is because it's too early to calculate this data.J. Struppnoreply@blogger.com