Why is raisng taxes today considered to be bad?

[Kaleva]

Note: the money figures listed below are in 2011 dollars.

The Wealth Tax Act of 1935 greatly increased taxes on those who made over $1,235,704.38. The top bracket was for those who made over $82,380,291.97 and the nominal rate for that bracket increased from 59% to 75%. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the only tax payer in the top tax bracket.

Earlier in 1932, the tax rate on the lowest bracket (those who made not over $65,904.23 and more then $0.00) was increased from 1.5% to 4%. The rate on the lowest bracket (those who made not more then $30,710.48 but more then $0.00) was increased to 10% in 1941.

Note: The lowest bracket was $0.00 to $65,904.23 in 1932 but it was changed in 1941 from $0.00 to $30,710.48.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Because it goes against 'supply-side economics' and St. Ronnie.

[aquart]

4. St. Ronnie was fine with taxing the rich.

[treestar]

24. Exactly!

They are still saying it - that when the government has money, it stifles the private sector. And punishes the successful. And all that crap they've been insisting on for decades.

[Drale]

2. Because if you repeat something enough

people will start to believe it, even if time and time again it has been proven to be 100% wrong.

[spanone]

3. you got me. that's how this country is funded.

[liberal N proud]

5. The republicans have successfully demonized the word TAX

just like they did with Liberal.

Propaganda works!

[Wait Wut]

15. From here on out, we will no longer refer to it as "tax"...

...it is now "Patriotic Financial Support of our Blessed Country, Amen."

[hifiguy]

6. The plutocrats do not like being taxed at all

They are quasi-divine and superior beings. After all you must be special to cheat tens of millions of people out of hundreds of trillions of dollars. They expect the proles (that's us, and anyone who doesn't collect at least $50 million per year) to lay down our lives for their exalted eminences and die faster so that they can have more and larger yachts with gold-plated toilets in the heads. It is our duty to sacrifice ourselves in ever greater numbers to thank them for existing and allowing us to breathe.

They should all be given the Mussolini treatment.

[noiretextatique]

damn these dupes

anyone know how to get rid of them?

[noiretextatique]

7. because of years of rw/corporate disinformation

and general ignorance about the function and purpose of government. and because of unelightened self-interest.

[Urban Prairie]

8. Because it delays, if not prevents fulfilling the ultimate goal of teabaggers/rightwingers, IMO.

That being the complete elimination of ALL government-provided and funded programs and services that support, or help to support those who no longer, or never could support themselves. Increasing funding for the MIC, as well as tax-cuts puts much more pressure on our representatives in DC to deeply cut and eventually eliminate them.

[NoGOPZone]

9. Because those who benefit most from an orderly society don't think they should have to pay for it.

P.S. Your tidbit about Rockefeller was interesting. I can imagine the whines about bills of attainder and penalizing success if that happened today.

[alsame]

10. The right wing has convinced a good portion of the population that

the money of hard working white tax payers is given to minorities and lazy people who won't work. See Reagan and his 'welfare queen' comment.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Because after three decades of wealth redistribution, with your money being

given to the wealthy, they inexplicably don't want to give it back to you.

[Still Sensible]

12. Because taking that position gets one elected

Taxes have become such a demonizing thing in elective politics because it works. It doesn't matter if higher tax rates make sense, those opposing them have a default electoral edge. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. It's like most people deplore negative political ads, so why does any candidate do it... because it works.

Of course, how well it works varies by jurisdiction. My state, Oklahoma, might be the worst.

[vi5]

13. Because "both sides" have determined it is....

We have a Democratic party that is too afraid to stand up for what is needed, and stand up for what they've done in the past, and too cowardly to point out how raising taxes as worked and has benefitted the economy (including the wealthy).

[IrishBuckeye]

14. Because Your representatives sold out to Big Business, they no longer represent 'We The People'. /nm

nm

[SnakeEyes]

16. What gets me

Are the right wingers that go on about how it didn't used to be even as high as it is now, citing the initial rates as if they were alive when the income tax first came in to being. And those only lasted a couple years.

[Kaleva]

25. The top rate went from 15% in 1916 to 67% in 1917

[housewolf]

17. Because the GOP has got itself locked into the religiosity of "taxes are always bad"

Remember, these people are drawn to religion and are, to some extent, vulnerable to acceptance of religious thought and prey to those who teach it.

In their minds, the "no taxes"/"taxes are bad (evil)" ideology is a force akin to a religion and equate it to moral principle. None of the rest of it carries any weight - rather, can't even be thought about or considered.

It's irrational, it's delusional, it's dangerous and it's inappropriate.

[Kaleva]

18. So what is the meme that one can't raise taxes during economic bad times based on?

[alc]

19. it should always be changing to find the optimal rate

It can be too high or too low which the loudest people on either side won't admit. People with money to invest look at one major thing: return on investment (ROI). Yes, you need a consumers, but market size/share goes into the ROI calculations as do a lot of other things such as taxes. Higher taxes mean lower ROI.

A lot has changed since 1935
* non-US economies have grown significantly so you can make a lot of money selling outside the US (and thus avoid US taxes if you also manufacture outside the US)
* infrastructure in other countries has grown significantly so you can manufacture more in other countries
* education in other countries has grown so there is a supply of labor at all levels
* communication has improved so you can control a foreign company from the US
* US markets are saturated. Unless you have a new thing that Americans don't have you won't grown the market in the US. The only option is to increase market share (vs. market size) which is very difficult which is very difficult and doesn't add jobs (Coke & Pepsi spend a lot of money to get <1% increase with a new flavor)

It used to be that the best ROI came from expanding in the US, even with high tax rates. You could get the best manufacturing (labor & infrastructure) plus growing markets that far outpaced foreign markets plus full control over your plants. None of that's true any more so it doesn't make financial sense for an international company to grow in the US. Even for small and medium companies it's better financially to move much of the business offshore, especially if you have foreign sales (which is cheap and easy given modern communication).

If a company has an expansion with a 10% pre-tax ROI, that ends up with around an 7% ROI with 30% tax compared to 9% in a country with a 10% tax. If the pre-tax ROI is only 5%, a 30% tax makes it financially not much better than a lot of "safe" investments so it doesn't make sense to invest in expansion. Since lots of countries will give low rates that's where large companies expand and people with lots of money invest for the best ROI.

Government revenue isn't just about corporate taxes and cap gains. It also depends on the amount of profits that they are applied to and the taxes on employees. An increase in tax rate will move some profits and employees to a country where the US can't tax them. The key for the government is to find the rate where some profits/jobs move but not too much, and this is constantly changing based on foreign taxes, infrastructure, labor, and markets.

Startups and small businesses are a little different, and that's where US job growth is. Taxes do have an affect with them: how much will the owner make after taxes after investing all their own money and 1-2 years of living on nothing? If a venture capitalist is involved who wants the best ROI and can deal with the foreign legal and administrative issues then even a startup is likely to be offshore.

[Kaleva]

21. I can understand the rates ought to be flexible but...

I think the argument can be made that an ever increasing portion of the federal budget being devoted to paying interest on the debt is in itself an impediment to economic recovery.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. All taxes are bad. Fuck other people. Freeload all you can.

It's the American way...

[hifiguy]

23. But you can only get away with that attitude

if you are a plutocrat or one of their idiot teabagging parrots. The rest of us actually have to pay the bills.

[Urban Prairie]

22. Because Grovel Norquist, Glenn Dreckkk and Flush Limbought say so.

How these three lying ignorant, bigoted stooges for the ultra-wealthy, all who hold no public office, have so much power and sway over virtually the entire nation, and our elected representatives in DC is truly mystifying...

[Kaleva]

26. A link to history of income tax rates 1913-2011

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.pdf